Hamilton and Alonso handed penalties

2011 Malaysian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Lewis Hamilton, McLaren, Sepang, 2011
Lewis Hamilton, McLaren, Sepang, 2011

Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso have both received 20-second penalties following their collision during the Malaysian Grand Prix.

Hamilton was penalised for making more than one move to defend his position. Alonso’s penalty was for making contact with the McLaren driver.

Alonso’s finishing position is unaffected by the penalty, but Hamilton drops from seventh to eighth.

Kamui Kobayashi inherits seventh position.

As these are time penalties imposed by the stewards, McLaren and Ferrari are unlikely to be allowed to appeal the decisions.

The text of the stewards’ decisions are as follows:

Facts: The Driver of car 3 made more than one change of direction to defend a position
Offence: Breach of Article 20.2 of the 2011 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations
Penalty: Drive through penalty, imposed after the race in accordance with Article 16.3 (20 seconds added to elapsed time).
Stewards’ decision 51 (Lewis Hamilton)

Fact: Caused a collision with car 3.
Offence: Involved in an incident as defined by Article 16.1 of the 2011 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations
Penalty: Drive through penalty, imposed after the race in accordance with Article 16.3 (20 seconds added to elapsed time).
Stewards’ decision 52 (Fernando Alonso)

Did Hamilton and Alonso deserve their Malaysian Grand Prix penalties?

  • Neither deserved a penalty (63%)
  • Both Hamilton and Alonso deserved a penalty (7%)
  • Alonso deserved a penalty (12%)
  • Hamilton deserved a penalty (17%)

Total Voters: 465

Loading ... Loading ...

You need an F1 Fanatic account to vote. Register an account here or read more about registering here.

Updated race results and points:

2011 Malaysian Grand Prix

    Browse all 2011 Malaysian Grand Prix articles

    Author information

    Keith Collantine
    Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

    Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

    427 comments on “Hamilton and Alonso handed penalties”

    1. Cue Ferrari and Hamilton fans going on about how unfair it is in three… two… one…

      1. it is pretty unfair though, surely if they’re equally to blame then it should be put down as a racing incident?

        1. Probably – I’ve just spent all morning getting irritated at the sheer fanboyism on Twitter.

          And I wanted to see if I could time that comment perfectly.

          1. This penalty is the final straw. The most ridiculous penalty! Sure, Hamilton was weaving but not badly! A warning should suffice this time. Alonso racing! This is just so insane I don’t understand it one bit! Ever since they brought in these ex-drivers steward advisors there have been more and more really dorky penalties. I’m just sick of this.
            THIS is what prevents good racing! No one can take a risk and attack because the risk stupid penalties for racing incidents!

            If this keeps up, I’m leaving F1. Not even kidding. I’m a pretty hardcore F1 fan. But this is starting to get ridiculous!

            1. Have to agree. We have to have fake overtaking for drivers who can’t manage otherwise, then two who do actually battle on track get penalized.

            2. Hamilton got his warning after he waved in front of Petrov last season. now it’s time for a penalty.
              We’ll miss you.

            3. Totally agree with you. That was pure racing. What are these stewards thinking!? So irritating and ridiculous.

            4. Have to agree with all these critical comments. In their single minded determination ( some would say paranoia ) to find woodland at any cost, the stewards have walked straight past thousands of trees !

              The Alonsa/Hamilton incident was a professional racing incident. It’s what happens when the best drivers on the planet push the error margins down to millionths of seconds and thousandths of a millimetre. There will be minor events like these. And that is all they are. Minor racing incidents.

              Very badly done Malaysian GP stewards.
              Very poorly done indeed !

            5. Hamilton has this coming from a very long time. He does this occasionally and had escaped the penalty for a long time. It is high time he got this. If there is a rule follow it. He is nothing special as he thinks. Hope atleast from now on he does not do this. Last year and the earlier years we can count so many instances where he has done this. good job stewards.

              For Alonso he damaged his wing, Got a penalty for that and that happened while racing with Hamilton. How bad your day can be ? he he he. The only consolation he can take home is that he did not drop down in the finishing position.

            6. Personally I feel there should have not been a penalty for either move.
              Alonso misjudging how close he was, how was that not a racing incident? We might as well have given Webber a penalty for flying over Kovalainen last year.

              As for Hamiltons moves. Personally I think this should be part of racing, it was certainly not exsessive weaving.
              But he was warned about it last year already, and it is against the rules, so I guess it should be penalized. Not too happy about it though.

            7. TMAX, instead of making crass comments about Hamilton deserving the penalty, compare his alleged weaving with Vettel’s changes of direction off the start line to block Hamilton. You’ll see Vettel did more. Any penalty? Of course not. Any penalty for Massa weaving FAR more to block Button last race? Of course. Nor should they have been penalized. The weaving rule should only really be there to prevent dangerous maneouvering, not aggressive (or just normal) defending.

              FIA are castrating racing in F1 while turning overtaking into a computer game gimmick (push the DRS button to overtake). Last season was vastly superior without DRS and KERS.

            8. This is F1, what do you expect? I watch a race but wait a couple of hours/days to find out the real result. It’s like Wrestling on wheels. I’m really enjoying ‘the show.’ It is pointless to watch a race live, may as well catch the highlights with the corrections included. Bring on the artificial rain and oil slicks.

            9. Not the mention the very harsh penalty Buemi got for speeding! Unless he was doing a lot more than allowed, a 10 second stop n go is very very harsh. F up stewards.

            10. Totally agree!!!

            11. I just watched Hamilton’s weaving and it is painfully obivious that Hamilton’s weaving prevented Alonso from passing on the straight, leading to the later collison. If anything I think Alonso was really the biggest loser from the whole scenario, blocked, then accidentially hits Hamilton, damaging his own car, then pits, then gets a 20 second penality.

              Having said that Hamilton’s weaving was not as bad as Massa’s blocking on Button in Australia, and Webber in Malaysia.

              The main problem is the lack of consitency in the application of the rules, which has led the whole bunch of current F1 drivers to play dirty, because there is always the chance they’ll get away with it. With some clean racing, you might even see some more overtaking happening.

        2. Yeah, it is pretty unfair, I hadn’t noticed Hamilton’s infraction and Alonso’s crash was purely a racing accident.

          1. Alonso’s crash is lack of skills… This kind of mistakes cost him the championship in 2010.
            Hamilton always does that, but I think this time it was no big deal…

            1. or lack of downforce on the front wing.

            2. I presume you are a F! driver to asses any of these guys skills? aren’t you?

      2. …and racing fans. It could be any two drivers on the grid and I’d still think it’s unfair. Hamilton defended his position forcefully and Alonso was over-zealous, a racing incident.

        1. Lol and I thought Nico had a bad day in the office.

          1. Racing Incident. Neither driver gained anything and neither incident was dangerous.

            The stewards probably wanted to Penalise Alonso (because thats what Alonso is there for), and were then put on the spot when Ferrari countered with “hit hit him because blah blah” so the FIA HAD to punish their homeboy as well.

            Stupid stupid stupid

            1. Agreed, ludicrous stewarding, they really need to avoid changing the finishing order retrospectivly. I’m at work today so although I watched the race I haven’t seen the bbc F1 Forum or any after race interviews. It would be intresting to see if the inquiry was instigated by comments by either Ferrari or McLaren. I really can’t see the point or reason for penalising either of them.

            2. @Infy Firstly a rule was broken by Hamilton. Your argument is like Break the rules as long as you don’t gain anything. Then everybody can break the rules and penalties can be handed out if they gain something.

              Lets take the case of Hamilton, if he had not waved in front of Alonso , Alonso would have overtaken him that means by Alonso not overtaking him then technically Hamilton had a race gain. Statistics also proves that Alsonso was faster than Hamilton at that point in race. Now if Alonso had overtaken him then, he would not have gone ahead with the wing clipping incident, the subsequent pitting and the penalty. Now that is a bigger loss for Alonso.

              So how can we say that Lewis did not gain anything and secondly even if he has not gained anything why should he be allowed to break rules which he had been doing for a long time.

            3. @infy.
              I see it the other way round. They wanted to penalise Hamilton and penalising Alonso gets round the ‘Hamilton is victim of the tyrant that is the FIA’. Alonso got a non-penalty and it was a ridiculous penalty that sets a dangerous precedent for the rest season. When the blame for a collision can be solely attributed to a driver then they get a penalty, regardless of how small.

              On collisions did Rubens get penalised for driving into Nico in Aus?

              You make it seem so clear cut when it isn’t. It’s a marginal decision made because of questionable wording in the rule book. Hamilton never moves off the racing line and it’s a long straight, I’d be surprised if you can find a driver that didn’t change direction twice on it. At no point did he block Alonso or did he drive dangerously.

            4. Don’t be so ridiculous. Conspiracy theory much?

              We know why they got the penalties, Hamilton was weaving and Alonso hit someone’s car. I don’t really agree with Lewis’ penalty and giving Alonso a penalty was well past what he deserved. But conspiracy theory? I think not…

        2. I agree entirely… its a ridiculous judgement over two drivers who where racing hard but fair…

          and thats before I consider the fact that one driver was actually penalised by the punishment and the other wasn’t….

          BLOODY FARCE! have seen the incident a few times and neither driver is to ‘blame’ it was a racing incident!!!

          1. 100% agree. The stewards are useless. They need to understand the difference between ‘dangerous driving’=penalty and a pure ‘racing incident=no penalty. This is pathetic, no penalty was necessary it would have not been a penalty 10 years ago so why is it now!!??

          2. All this comment is excellent ! OK.. Now look at Vettel off the line. I don’t think his moving from side to side down to turn one is at all out of order, but if what Hamilton did was penalised then Vettel’s weaving is way, way out of order. Ten times worse.

            Fact is though that crass decisions like these
            do very serious damage to this fabulous sport.

            1. totally agree…. just see the replay of the race and Vettel weaving was clear braking the rules….also if any one notes Maldonado hit Perez on lap three or four from behind and not get penalty…..very strange decision from FIA

          3. It was actually two separate incidents. 1st Hamilton blocking on the main straight. 2nd was Alonso crashing into the rear of Hamilton.

            Regarding the 1st incident, I believe Hamilton should have been penalised.

            Regarding the 2nd incident, it would have never happened without the first one, and Alonso did no damage to Hamilton’s car, nor did he impede Hamilton’s race, so in my eyes no penalty should have been applied.

        3. Correct, there was also a lot of wheel banging today, and thats what racing is all about.
          It was a replay of the incident in Brazil 2009 when Hamilton clipped the rear of Massa and gave him a puncture, NO inquest.
          We, the viewers, want to see close racing, and when we do, the stewards get all uppety and start chucking out penalties.
          Drivers shouldn’t have to consider the consequences of a maneuver as interpreted by the stewards on top of all the other aspects of racing.

          1. 100% agree!!!

          2. It was a replay of the incident in Brazil 2009 when Hamilton clipped the rear of Massa and gave him a puncture.

            Massa wasn’t there. I can only think of Webber closing in on Kimi and braking his wing, but that was Webber’s fault.

          3. BAR not MAS.

          4. opposite lock
            11th April 2011, 12:52

            You’re thinking of Barrichello, not Massa – but his puncture was caused by him forcing Hamilton against the pit wall, for which Barrichello later apologised.

      3. A penalty each which penalises Hamilton but not Alonso. Conspiracy theorists begin …

        1. A penalty each which penalises Hamilton but not Alonso. Conspiracy theorists begin …

          Well that’s not true because when it happened Alonso had to pit and Hamilton didn’t.

          1. What? The final race result has changed adding 20 seconds to each driver. This pushes Hamilton down one place but leaves Alonso where he originally was. Therefore Hamilton is penalised and Alonso isn’t!

            Nothing to do with the actual incident, that was during the race and is irrelevant to this.

            1. Weren’t the two incidents separate? Hamilton weaved on the S/F straight and Alonso crashed into Hamilton a few corners later. No racing incident.

            2. Wait a second, point is, if someone is guilty for something, you give him deserved penalty after the race. In this case, penalty for both offenses is drive-tru, which can be awarded by stewards even after the race. Its equivalent of 20sec, because that is how much time driver loses in race when going trough pits at pit limit, and that is fair thing.

              Reasoning that same time added didn’t cause same finishing relegation for both is wrong, because you cant penalize by dropping positions, only by adding time, and that is that 20secs.

              Remember what happened in Valencia last year, Alonso obeyed rules, didn’t pass Safety car and suffered, Lewis did and even if he was penalized, he make it stick, because gain for offense was bigger than penalty, that in my view was unfair.

              This here should be seen as two different incidents. First, Lewis weaved on pit strait, and that is by rules not permitted, therefore, his penalty is deserved. He said he knew that and even if he let Fernando pass in next corner i think stewards would penalize him anyway.

              Second one was the touch, which i as a Ferrari fan can put this way: Lewis had bad traction out of corner two, and lost a little bit of traction uphill to turn 4. That loss of acceleration caught Fernando, who was very fast out of turn 2 and pushing KERS uphill, by a surprise and Alonso just couldn’t turn right quick enough to miss Lewis. No damage was to Lewis’ car, Fernando let him pass (so no advantage is gained by collision) and that is it. This is all true, but rules say you cant hit anyone from behind, and penalty stands. Arguing that he was already penalized by having had to pit doesn’t stand, because rules are rules. Not strictly enforcing them, will one time help you or your team, but be sure next time you will be on the other side, and then we will have 2 sides thinking they were damaged by stewards, and they will be right, because if the rules were enforced by the book, there is no argument about that.

        2. why bother… this is f1 this kind of thing has always happened :-( I thought the idea of having an ex-driver on the panel was to stop this kind of crap…. but at the end of the day the wrong decision has been made and we need to sort that out not go on about conspiracy theories.

      4. Hamilton’s penalty is ok i guess, it was unsporting. BUT Alonso’s penaly is just ridiculous. it’s a racing incident!

        1. sorry but you if you are going to give imaginary to one driver you might as well give them to both… but to stick to some arbitrary punishment that punishes one driver but not the other just puts sublime with the ridiculous…

          but at the end of the day it appears its just business as usual… Sauber lost valuable points, Perez and Kobi were robbed of valuable points because of technical infringements that didn’t aid them… and there will be more incidents as the season goes on… its just a part of the sport I thought ex-drivers on the stewards panel was supposed to stop… this was just a racing incident… if they thought the drivers needed a slap on the wrist then they should have just given them a stern telling off and a fine, with instruction to play nice the next time (which would be ignored).

          1. So you can break the rules all you want as long as it doesn’t directly benefit you? That’s like writing notes on your hand before you enter a test and saying its okay because you had studied and remembered them anyway. Don’t think the examiners would be okay with that.
            I think Alonso’s incident was a racing incident, but the stewards had reason to give Hamilton a penalty for weaving, remember last year when he only got warnings for it, he knew exactly what he was doing.

            1. Sorry I think misrepresented my views… At the end of the day penalties are part of the sport… they happen sometimes they are unfair… doesn’t matter the rules are the rules and the sport goes on regardless…

              I am annoyed about the penalties from Malaysia, because the footage I saw didn’t give me any reason to think they are justified… but the same can be said about any one of hundreds maybe even thousands of different incidents over the years..

        2. jsw11984 (@jarred-walmsley)
          10th April 2011, 20:06

          I agree, Hamilton broke the rules with the weaving but Alonso hitting him was just down to bad luck. It was a racing incident and shouldn’t have caused a penalty

          1. Finally the FIA get their wish for some overtaking and exciting side by side racing. Oh no wait…far too exciting! Dish out the penalties! How draconian towards both Ferrari and McLaren.

            1. i dont get it. First bring in DRS and KERS to allow more overtaking, and then when there is a racing incident while overtaking, penalise the guys? so what exactly do they want? the leader just parks his car and let everyone else pass?

    2. What a complete joke.

      1. Fumin’!! Absolute Bulls***!!

        “Sorry guys, your not allowed to do anything while racing.”

        I was already angry today with Lewis being so slow, but this is ‘just the icing on the cake’ now! Completely stupid

      2. Agreed, this is ridiculous.

        Just in case any of the stewards reads this… If you are too slow to judge the situation during the race, please, for the love of all that’s F1, don’t change the result we saw!

        This kind of penalty should be reserved only for the most extreme cases. In my opinion even the penalty handed to Sauber two weeks ago was unjustified. You have other tools at your disposal.

        I won’t even go into the fact, that any penalty in this case is completely unjustified. These things happen. They were racing!

        However if you really want to penalize them, pick another way. Changing the result feels like cheating, like you are robbing us of something.

        1. One more thing: I don’t think any of them deserved a penalty, but if you want to penalize someone THINK. You are taking points away from one championship contender, but not from the other! Where is the logic here?

          1. Hamilton was the only one who deserved a penalty!!! =P

            But seriously none of that was Hamilton’s fault.

            1. haha Riise laa, love your sarcasm!! (at least i hope it is)

              I don’t think Hamilton and Alonso are allowed to race each other anymore. They will have to do time-trials on their own now LOL

            2. This incident reminded me of Bahrain 2008, did anyone get a penalty then? Nope

      3. This is madness. The stewards should get a special Darwin reward for that…

        1. But these awards are only given post-mortem… ahh, I see what you mean now, you devil! Well, it’s hard to disagree.

          1. As a less drastic alternative I would make them drive a HRT through a full race! Or would it be more drastic?

            1. I mean the stewards ;)

        2. To get a Darwin, don’t the have to remove themselves from the gene pool? So.. bit more drastic

    3. KERS and DRS are introduced to help improve the racing, yet the drivers are getting penalised for actually racing. This is an embarrassment for the FIA.

      1. Exactly it’s a racing incident. I thought we wanted to see racing?

        1. well thats clearly not the case. If the FiA have handed out penalties its because they know some reason why a penalty should be given.

          Either because Hamilton moved with Alonso when he tried to overtake, or because Hamilton lifted.

          Alonso meanwhile caused the accident.

          Those are hypothesis, but the stewards won’t have come to that decision lightly – changing the results post race is not something that the sport needs

          1. there is also the suggestion on the autosport forum that it is because of hamiltons weaving the lap before – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L61_AevsjMs

            1. Just watched that video, it makes me laugh out loud. He hardly moves a couple of times and Alonso is in no attempt of making a move as he is so far back.

            2. Even with the video, i fail to see how that is weaving. Last year with Petrov yes. But this, i really don’t see.

            3. check this out

              what do you think

            4. Its racing, what a disappointment!

            5. vettel clearly weaving on the start :

            6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDfkz0J74Qg

              It reminds me last year. that was between Hamilton and Petrov. Many claimed Hamilton should get penaly but not. maybe stewards want to correct his habit…

            7. Eggry, that is ridicilous. Petrov followed hamilton there….

            8. @alonsodz – how did you post the video?? Which formatting code??

            9. @dam00r that is why you don’t have to weave. you can crash with opposite if he’s already there.

          2. Isn’t Hamilton allowed to lift?

            When the camera was on LH’s car, it did sound full throttle.

            1. This is nonsense. Now drivers cannot fight for position!!!

              Is that lap weavering around???? If yes what do oyu want a driver in front do? From now on show him the blue flag so that he will let the guy behind to pass freely.

              Hamilton takes very critics always on these issue but what do we want to see a procession or a good fight.

              Why penalise these 2 Champions while doing their duties. It was just a racing incident and nothing else.

            2. I think the stewards would take a dim view of Hamilton lifting on the straight to fend off another car. But it didn’t appear as if that’s what he did.

    4. I’m very curious to see the reasons why for both drivers – why did the stewards think they needed punishing?

      1. Lewis for moving more than once when defending. I didn’t see it at the time and thought it was just a racing incident which the stewards should leave alone. However, if they found Lewis moved more than once then a punishment is fair I think.

        Alonso for hitting him.

        1. Lewis moved over to defend after they exited turn 3, just before Alonso hit him, which would have been his one move – that feels like there should be no penalty there.

          Alonso hit Hamilton in a racing incident, he came out worse off, so why would he need a penalty to mis-judging the gap to another car?

          It’s all conjecture until the reasoning is given by the stewards.

          1. The reason for Lewis was that he moved too much when defending according to Adam Cooper…

          2. According to Adam Cooper it was because Lewis moved more than allowed when defending.

          3. I don’t understand penalising Lewis even as a Ferrari fan. I would have done it only if he would have had really break-tested Alonso.

            He did make only one move.

            At least in that particular situation.

        2. I think it is rather unfair though, the two infractions (I also didn’t see Lewis doing that, but the stewards have the data) aren’t of the same magnitude; one possibly held up Alonso for a bit, the other kept Hamilton extra slow for the rest of the race. And then it looses him an extra position too? No, definitely unfair, they should have gotten different penalties.

          I also have to say, that maybe those are the rules, but it is a bit pointless that most penalties tend to go for those behind the leaders in the race – kicking a horse when it is down, and keeping it there, thus spoiling it even worse.

          1. Hamilton has been warned about weaving before at this track though and it possibly resulted in the crash.

            Simon Adam Cooper said that the reason for Ham’s penalty was moving too much when defending.

          2. Maybe they both got penalties for whining too much. The stewards reasoning that they would only pipe down if punished

            1. I do think so, yes. And that is a ridiculous: just let the stewards tell them to shut up and deal with it instead!

          3. hamilton said it himself in the bbc interview – the incident with Alonso didn’t slow him down. Also, Hamilton weaved in the top video at least 3 times, both incidents were worthy of drive – thru’s so 20 sec. penalty was completely fair.
            As for those complaining that Hamilton lost a position – Valencia 2010. Drive – thru’, not position lost.

            1. Please don’t confuse ‘weaving’ with a move to get back on the correct racing line for a corner.

              This is a stupid decision for both drivers and a blot on F1.

        3. Massa weaved much more to defend against Button during the last race in Melbourne, but penalizing either Hamilton or Alonso is a bad decision.

    5. what the hell for?

      1. Exactly, the stewards have no brains.

    6. Maybe I’m letting my emotions get the better of me but I find Alonso’s punishment ridiculous. First off on the face of it the whole thing looked like a racing incident and a penalty for it isn’t even consistent with past ruling (Ham Brazil 09 and Aus 2010 and Bourdais/Heikki Silv 09).

      If the steards found Hamilton moved more than once a penalty is fair (esp as he was warned last year) but if he was found to be driving dangerously how can they possibly punish the other guy for crashing into him? It’s just crazy logic.

      1. That is ridiculous Steph. Alonso may claim he hit HAM because he was weaving (don’t know if he did), but that is rubbish nonsense, he just made a mistake himself, driving into HAM. Weaving isn’t dangerous driving, it is making the car wider than allowed. Sure, unsporty, and therefore not allowed, but not dangerous.

        I agree both should not have gotten a punishment, it really seemed to be a racing incident.

        To be honest, I read this as if McLaren decided to complain about Alonso, because they were miffed, then Ferrari said “yeah, but, if you start like that, then HAM did” … and the stewards were stupid and listened.

        I have seen before (Ferrari I am sure got a bit of it after Valencia, and in Singapore) that this results in them wanting to punish the one to complain extra if both parties are at fault – hence giving HAM an the same penalty for a lighter offence while he didn’t have the same margin behind him. They knew full well Alonso would then keep his position.

        I would rather they just say: racing inicident, stop moaning to the complainer instead of this.

      2. Sorry if I came of a bit strong, I do think maybe your emotions as a Ferrari fan are getting the better of you. I guess my emotion too a bit :-p

        What I wanted to say is: I agree Alonso shouldn’t have gotten a penalty; the fact they both got one shows, in my opinion, that it is as I describe above: the stewards felt forced to investigate; instead of just saying: racing incident, they decided to give both a penalty, and I do believe that likely McLaren asked first, and thus got the bigger negative effect.

        So, don’t blame HAM, if anyone, blame the stewards for not having strong enough backs, and McLaren for not letting it rest (we can forgive Ferrari for countering I think :)

        1. I also believe that this was a clear racing incident. None of them deserved it. Alonso did a mistake he didn’t earn anything from it. And I’m sure Hamilton didn’t got this place because of the hit.

          Also his move cannot be described as weaving! That’s ridiculous! He was clearly trying to defend his place. It’s called racing. Hamilton’s move on Petrov last year was weaving. That’s certainly not! Hamilton moved a bit of the limit in the straight. As soon as he entered the corner he simply followed the racing line got the apex and got out of it.

          And since thy want to encourage overtaking why on earth did they penalise them? It’s a a laugh for sure!

        2. I didn’t say it caused the crash. I said moving more than once is against the rules so should be punished. My gripe is that Alonso got punished.

          1. Actually reading back I should have been clearer so sorry for the confusion Bosyber! I still think it was a racing incident but if the stewards saw more movement then allowe then I can’t argue against a penalty for Hamilton and it was fair.

            1. True, and I suppose according to the rules he should be punished then, esp. since he got a reprimand last year for it.

              I just didn’t feel that he was really weaving, as many said, he moved off the racing line and back; and positioned himself for the corner, a bit later – it is a bit silly that one isn’t at all allowed to defend, apparently, I would like them to just be allowed to race rather than call those slight moves weaving. Originally the “no weaving” rule was introduced for much more clear and aggressive moves where drivers were almost pushed off the track, unless I’m mistaken.

              We definitely agree that Alonso should not have been punished for making a mistake during racing.

              Fundamentally, I also really dislike punishments altering the race after has run, especially for this sort of stuff it is just silly and stupid, and makes me feel watching the race live is somewhat pointless (still didn’t watch that recording I also have either, why bother).

    7. Crookeymonster
      10th April 2011, 13:20

      Why? It was a racing incident, don’t think they did anything else wrong

    8. What a stupid decision. It was just a racing incident, Hamilton didn’t do anything wrong. If Hamilton momentarily lifted, then he should be disqualified. I can’t see why Alonso got penalised either, even if it has no affect on his result.

      1. It was because they decided Hamilton moved more than once when defending apparently rather than any conspiracy about how slowly he was going.

      2. It’s noty about Ham lifting or any other reason why he was slow but about his movements across the track.

    9. absolutely unnecessary

    10. That’s absurd. I don’t believe Alonso should be being penalised but Hamilton appeared to be a passenger to the incident.

      The FiA need to stop trying to legislate away aggression in Formula One drivers.

    11. Riduculous, it was a racing incident that required no intervention.

    12. I read somewhere else that Hamilton’s was for moving twice when defending on the straight. If this is the csse half the field should get a penalty. No idea why Alonso should get a penalty. It’s racing – these things happen when you RACE.

      1. took the words out my mouth. why was Masa not penalized in Melbourne and while was vettel not penalized for weaving today? in fact while we are at it, why was vettel not penalized for the illegal pass on Button in Melbourne?

      2. Totally agree.

        It highlights an issue about the stewards understanding of the rules or why they exist and it impacts their decision making. Hamilton was punished by the wording of a rule which is essentially there to prevent blocking and dangerous driving and I don’t think he was guilty of either. Ditto for Alonso and his penatly.

    13. Sometimes i just can’t stand that so-called sport.

      1. Its taken you this long?

        1. absolutely ludicrous

    14. I think the ruling is a bit incoherent, how can Alonso be to blame for an incident where the driver he was trying to pass was dangerously weaving?

      1. How was Hamilton weaving? they were going around a corner…

        1. I didn’t conclude that he was doing anything wrong the stewards did, in which case I don’t understand why they also punished Alonso. But I’ll wait to hear what their reasoning was.

          1. So going around a corner is considered dangerously weaving now?

            1. I’m not saying he moved dangerously the stewards are. And if they concluded he did they surely can’t at the same time punish Alonso for causing the incident.

              Although I may have jumped the gun and Ham may have been penalised for weaving before that, as KazeXT says below. In which case my point looks a bit daft. But as it is I don’t really think it makes sense to punish Alonso.

        2. After having watched the incident again, I can’t believe that the weaving penalty is related to moment when Alonso touched Hamilton. It must have been earlier on than that.

      2. * I’ll add I don’t think they should have been punished, but if they conclude Ham was blocking too aggressively they can’t simultaneously punish Alonso for the accident that then happened

        1. They can – Hamilton was punished for an earlier instance on the straight. The bash was a lot later.

          Still, neither deserve a penalty – Hamilton’s ‘weave’ was marginal at best, and Alonso’s accident was a racing incident.

          1. It was evident that Hamilton had problems in accelerating from every corner with that set of tyre. Alonso has misjugded that in that corner and it was a pure racing accident. FIA you need to let Champions race and let us have some fun watching them.

            1. Totally agree. It looks like he got a touch more wheel spin off the corner before Alonso nudged him. The only victim in the incident was Alonso, so the penalty is poor form and will only discourage racing.

              This is the FIA’s new position: just use DRS to get past in one move and forget about racing elsewhere.

              They need a common sense rule!

          2. Yer as I said above, if Ham’s penalty was for an earlier one then my point is redundant.

          3. I agree that neither should get a penalty. They both suffered after all.

            I think everyone is looking at this wrong to use the word “weaving”. It’s probably better to think of it more as a penalty for changing his line too many times on the straight. I have had a look at the video and noticed it at the time he did it. It wasn’t a wild weave or anything and it wasn’t dangerous but the rules have become a bit strict in this area.

            1. Perhaps a victim of the increased marbling from the Pirelli tyres? There’s now a bigger disadvantage being offline, and perhaps it catches drivers off-guard.

              Still, definitely not a fan of post-race penalties. It makes no sense with engine conservation rules – I know that the intention is to penalise drivers, but how it unfairly penalises drivers that have made space enough to ‘ease off’, some of whom may be totally unaware they’re even under investigation.

    15. What?! Why?

      1. How about you read the article instead of just reacting to a headline? Hamilton was given a penalty for excessive blocking of Alonso, who was given a penalty of his own for causing an avoidable accident.

        1. I think he understands the article. He is just using a Very commonly used phrase (‘What?! Why?’) to express disbelief at what he may consider to be a very poor stewarding decision.

        2. Because when the article first came up it didn’t have anything in it except the fact that Hamilton and Alonso were penalised. Keith edited it afterwards.

          1. Sorry for having an initial reaction…

            In fact this article has expanded a lot since then, to include videos and a poll.

        3. What he said.

    16. So it is forbidden now to fight for position and have contact? Seriously, this is a huge fail by the FIA.

    17. Just when we thought the FIA had turned a new leaf and were making better judgement calls, this happens. Surely they 4th steward should have made a strong case for this being a racing incident?

    18. I think it’s probably a good move from the FIA.

      With bigger closing speeds due to the rules this year, I think that it was necessary to crack down on drivers darting out at the very last minute. We’ve seen a few very near misses in recent years, such as Hamilton nipping Barrichello at Brazil 2009 and just missing Massa at Melbourne 2011.

      As for defending, the same thing – with big closing speeds, I think it was necessary for the FIA to make a stand, with minimal penalty to the drivers (only a few points for Hamilton).

      These drivers probably are scapegoats for a greater initiative (Petrov weaved a bit as well), but I don’t think they can complain too much, particularly Hamilton, as he has been let off many times in the past.

    19. FIA has an astonishing talent to just ruin what you wouldn’t think can possibly be ruined.

      1. kinda feels like Spa ’08, huh?

        near perfect race and then some numb-skull sticks his brains in a grinder and then mucks it up for the rest of us, leaving the bitter aftertaste.


    20. Lucas "Mr. Veloce"
      10th April 2011, 13:30

      Repeat of 2008, they want Hamilton to lose out. None of that incident was Hamilton’s fault yet they must have dilerberatly given both of them 20 second penalty, knowing Fernando wouldn’t have lost out when it was all his fault. I am disgusted by this, if I was McLaren, I’d take this to court. The stewards are Ferrari biased and want to look like they are punishing both drivers, I’m sorry but you aren’t.

      1. You are biased if you don’t think Hamilton got an advantage at Spa 2008. That was a fair penalty.

        1. At the time the rule was that you had to give the place back.

          Also, Hamilton drove up to raikkonen and past between the two bus stop chicanes. He just had so much more traction.

          So no, he didn’t get any unfair advantage either. He was simply that much faster.

      2. Don’t be daft, the stewards looked at these incidents independently. And the judgement on either penalty isn’t connected to the fate of the other driver.

      3. You do realise Hamilton got a penalty for weaving, not the contact with Alonso…

    21. My concern is that now if two drivers collide later in the season in a similar fashion they either have to punished equally or an acknowledgement is needed that this was a poor decision.

    22. I’d like to see the video evidence of Hamilton making more than one move to defend.

      1. he did, just before the incident on the straight, but call me a fanboy, but it was not excessive

    23. What? It must be FIA want them to have more hate to each other!

      1. To spice up the “show”?

        1. That’s what I’m talking about :P

    24. Silly stewards, April Fools’ Day is the first of April, not the tenth.

      I mean, seriously, are they kidding?

      What next? 20s penalty for looking at another driver agressively?

    25. Why Massa didn’t get a penalty in Melbourne then? So stupid.

      1. I know i’ll change my mind next race but right now i’m really tired with formula 1 stupid rules. I might stick to tennis. Make more sense to me as a sport.

    26. Really FIA created new controversy out of nothing. The incident generally accepted as racing incident and moreover none of either driver complained about other (alonso abt weaving or ham abt collision). So not sure what on earth stewards were doing to handout penalty.
      We were all discussing FIA have done better jobs with stewarding in last year..but now back to old days.

    27. I’ve added a poll. There was a slight glitch when the poll went live so I had to correct and re-set it, meaning the first seven people who voted will have to cast their votes again. Apologies for the error.

    28. the lack of consistency is more of a concern.

      Case in point VET with all 4 wheels off track passing BUT in Melbourne, no penalty. Yet, WEB penalized going around (ALO??) in Singapore in ’10.

      The addition of the stewards has been an improvement to the sport’s fairness, for the most part, but right now, I just want some ruddy consistency, fer cryin’ out loud

      1. And Vettel clearly blocking Hamilton after the start doesn’t get punished when Hamilton not driving perfectly straight for 800meters is seen as blocking.

        There is one thing in common with both situations though …

      2. I just want some ruddy consistency

        You are getting consistency! In the years gone by they have often made their mind up on a whim, and in that tradition they are still doing it today! :D

    29. Ridiculous.. Why the need for penalties? It was a racing incident.

      1. There trying to make F1 fun and more overtaking, that was a good battle to watch! All I can think is that there going to loose fans by making stupid decisions like that.

        Was good to watch and yh didn’t end well, but surely that’s just racing?

    30. If hamilton was penilised for defending, then the crash is his fault right? But still alonso gets a pently for causing an accident… it makes sence that hamiltons waeving was the thing that caused the accident! If both needed a pently it must just be a racing accident

      1. No. The incidents are independent of one another

    31. I can only assume Lewis’s penalty was for earlier on, down the pit straight?

      I think both incidents should have been classed as a racing incident.

      I’m unsure on the “2 move” rule. Isn’t it against the very nature of racing? I know its for “safety”, but is moving more than once really that unsafe? These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world, after all.

      1. If I remember well, it´s because of that Barrichello-R.Schumacher crash 2002 in Australia where Ralf´s gone airbourne because Barrichello moved twice.

        Ridiculous rule for me.

      2. Hamilton fan in peace. Agree mate, Hamiltons penalty will be for his defending on the Start/Finish straight. Technically he did move more than once, but I agree that the rule is silly. The penalties should only be given out if incidents occur, the drivers should be entitled to defend their position. Massa’s defending in Melbourne could be considered in the same light and he was not penalised (rightly IMO). As for Alonso’s penalty, that is outrageous. He’s made a mistake which has cost him a podium, then he is penalised for it? Even more ridiculous is the fact the punishment doesn’t affect his points total. I’m sure he’s devastated at his total race time being 20 seconds longer (not!).

        1. Actually I´m a Ferrari/Alonso fan, lol.

      3. End of lap 44/beginning of lap 45 was Hamiltons supposed ‘weave’. ridiculous rule IMO.

    32. I dont understand how Hamiltons defense of his position is worse than Massa defending from Button in Melbourne

      1. I still cant find what “move” the FIA are referring too (er, FIA transparency…?) but I agree. Massa was aggressive in Melbourne.

      2. Or Vettel’s move on Hamilton just after the start. Or just about any defense of any driver against another.

    33. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah maaan these stewards are pathetic!!!! Seriously! They are the reason no one is racing! Screw DRS, fire these pathetic stewards instead! Neither of them should have a penalty! This is just appauling!

    34. so if the stewards decide (ridiculously) to be so harsh when it comes to making two moves (which I didn’t see Lewis do, he exited the previous corner, then went left to defend the inside = 1 move), what about Vettel at the start then vs Hamilton. Vettel moves to the inside, Hamilton follows looks to inside buyt pops back out to try the outside, then Vettel moves back outside….
      IF they’re gonna be so silly at least be consisten in your judgments!

    35. Hamilton did the supposed muliple move on the straights but was that due to marbles on track? Because immediately the got to the start finish straight he moved left then he seemed to be dodging marbles afterwards. Yet still plenty of time to make him do a drive through. Because Alonso’s incident was not connected with Hamilton’s pit straights antic. When Alonso hit Hamilton, both on board cameras showed Hamilton holding his line perfectly without deviating.

    36. Orishas77 (@)
      10th April 2011, 13:46

      About Lewis’ penalty, we need to watch the video again, but if he actually drove dangerously changing line twice on the straight, which is forbidden, a penalty would seem fair.

      About Alonso, I really don’t understand why he got a penalty since :
      a) he had no

    37. Unless we’re talking about penalties for different events here, I don’t see how they can both be at fault here. Confusing stuff again.

    38. I’m thinking Hamilton’s penalty was for the lap before the touch, when he moved all over the main straight trying to break Alonso’s tow – just like last year with Petrov.

      And as many others have commented, Alonso didn’t deserve any more penalty then losing his front wing for a racing incident (unless his radio chatter was something like “I’m going to crash into Hamilton!”)

      1. Haha maybe he was vocal about it beforehand! In all seriousness, a penalty for Alonso for what is clearly a racing incident is pathetic. Things like this really do leave a sour aftertaste.

    39. watch the start, how many times did Vettel change direction…

      1. Exactly but they dont care, it was Vettel…

      2. Exactly. I just don’t get this rule, or when they choose to apply it.

      3. no difference with Hamiltons whatsoever. Clear bias from the FIA I’m afraid :(

        1. There actually was a huge difference. Vettel made his double move in the braking zone while Hamilton’s “move” was on the ling drive along the straight.

          1. The Last Pope
            11th April 2011, 2:37

            Its even worse than that. (1)Vettel was moving to block other drivers. (2)Hamilton was moving sideways away from alonso to break the slipsteam.

            Situation 1, the danger is caused by the car infront. He is putting the other driver at risk of collision. This is far worse than…

            Situation 2, the danger is caused by the car behind wanting more slipstream. He is putting himself at risk.

            There sould be a rule saying how many moves a car can make to remain in a slipstream. If Alonso hadn’t followed Hamilton in the weave the weave wouldn’t have happend.

    40. Orishas77 (@)
      10th April 2011, 13:49

      About Lewis’ penalty, we need to watch the video again, but if he actually drove dangerously changing line twice on the straight, which is forbidden, a penalty would seem fair.

      About Alonso, I really don’t understand why he got a penalty since :
      a) he had no interest in crashing into Hamilton
      b) he did not damage Lewis’ car (apparently)
      c) he actually damaged HIS OWN car and punished himself with a broken wing and one more pitstop

      They are both world champions and experienced drivers, so I don’t think penalties where necessary to “teach” Alonso. Hamilton might need to be less aggressive when defending his position, though.

      1. I think he took a chunk of Lewis’s diffuser. I was very surprised he didnt get a puncture.

        Either way, I guess that isnt the point.

      2. he damaged Lewis’ diffuser, but that shouldn’t warrant Alonso getting a penalty. He cost himself a podium, that is punishment enough. But Alonso’s ‘penalty’ only affects the statistics, not his points total, so will he really give a fig? Pretty pathetic from the FIA.

        1. And if it does, why didn’t he get one for damaging Button’s last year?

          Stewarding remains a farce despite the former driver addition.

    41. If you watch the replay of the incident there is no weaving involved its just a misjudgement made by alonso behalf, but with this being F1 then there has to be some kind of drama thrown in at the end, we’ve all seen these crazy decisions made in the past so it comes as no surprise.

    42. This kind of penalties lead straight to boring races, and who likes watching boring races?!

    43. Inconsistent by the FIA. no penalty for massa in Australia. No penalty for Vettel at turn 1. Only a B&W flag for Hamilton last year so why a 20sec penalty this time??

      1. It’s ridiculous isn’t it. Spoils what should be the pinnacle of motorsport.

    44. Clarification on the Hamilton penalty is needed, but I certainly didn’t see anything at all to justify it.

      Alonso on the other hand simply made a mistake. One which has already cost him a possible podium position. There was absolutely no reason for a penalty. Are we saying drivers have to drive a perfect race now or they may get penalised for any errors they make? I could perhaps understand if Hamilton lost out as a result (like when Vettel took out Button in Belgium and was handed a drive-through penalty, though I think that was still a racing incident), but the only loser in that battle was Alonso.

      I just don’t understand the stewards motivation.

    45. Do Mclaren get a chance to appeal this? And will the Ferrari International Assistance clarify at which point Hamilton was “weaving”?

      1. How can you call them “Ferrari International Assistance” when they go ahead and penalise Ferrari? True, Hamilton lost position and Alonso did not – but only because Alonso finished more than twenty seconds ahead of Kamui Kobayashi, who inherited seventh place from Hamilton.

      2. hahaha, certainly could call them that. Give Alonso a penalty that doesn’t affect anything but his race time? How is that a penalty!? But still, Alonso didn’t deserve a penalty so I’m glad it doesn’t affect his points total. But the Hamilton punishment is justified according to the rules. BUT, I completely disagree with the rule, its a joke stopping the drivers from actually defending. What leaves the sour taste is the fact Massa wasn’t punished in Melbourne for similar driving, and Vettel CLEARLY made more that one move into the first corner after the start, yet nothing was said about that. Clear bias towards Vettel I’m afraid.

        1. But still, Alonso didn’t deserve a penalty

          Right, because him tagging Hamilton the way he did was completely unavoidable and wouldn’t at all have ended like Webber’s backflip in Valencia.

          Even if he wasn’t affected by it, it was richly deserved. It was a stupid rookie error, and one that could have easily taken them both out of the race.

    46. ok lets accept the premise of the penalties and lets look at if the penalty is consistently applied through out the race….
      O wait look at the start Vettel moves more than once on Hamilton to defend position….

      This is why I 100% Disagree Be consistent in penalties or dont give a penalty for any. To me thats the biggest error here and look at last weekend same thing with Button and then Vettel overtaking moves inconsistent

      1. Both incidents Vettel being given the benefit of the doubt. Just not fair. The FIA need to take a long, hard look at themselves and understand from our point of view how biased they look from the outside.

    47. You have to respect the rules of racing. Lewis Hamilton has a history of weaving; remember what he did to Petrov on the main straight last year? Likewise Alonso – that accident had the potential to get very ugly, very quickly. Shades of Webber at Valencia spring to mind.

      1. In that case though, Hamilton was moving pretty much from one side of the track to the other; it was more subtle than that this time, definitely not erratic. Personally, I feel that the penalty for both drivers was harsh. Maybe a reprimand for HAM, and I don’t think ALO deserved one at all.

        1. well said Kaze, I agree with that. I’de personally like to see this ‘one move’ rule removed from the sport altogether.

          1. But then you’re jsut giving drivers a licence to weave violently back and forth across the track to defend a position. Where it doesn’t cause accidents, it will simply prevent overtaking.

      2. Vettel didn’t respect the rules, Massa didn’t respect the rules.

        What Alonso did isn’t even covered by the rules.

    48. inside the FIA Stewards Office: “well… we havn’t said anything for a while?”

    49. Hamilton deserved a penalty for waving
      but Alonso????? why

      1. Did you miss the bit when Alonso drove into the back of lewis?

        1. I got that part, but missed the part when Hamilton “weaved”

    50. Lewis was warned last year about doing that and here he was doing it again. Yes it was less of a degree compared with the Petrov one.

      But still that isn’t on since nearly all the other drivers obey that rule.

      1. What about Vettel at the start? no consistency at all

        1. exactly, it’s the consistency that really aggravates me. Makes the FIA look very biased towards Vettel.

        2. So Lewis is allowed to weave behind vettel YET! other cars are also trying to get past Lewis.

          1. You shot yourself in the foot with your own statement.

            nearly all the other drivers obey that rule

            So why aren’t the other drivers who don’t respect the rule penalised as well?

            1. @Kondongo

              Becuase they actually listen to the stewards and don’t do it again after they get caught, Lewis seems to not understand warnings afterwards and thinks he can get away with it again.

              I can’t say “nobody else weaves” because that would be nieve of me saying that only Lewis does it. I would rather be shot in the foot than nieve.

    51. I voted Hamilton to be punished. He did look a little on the weave-y side. He’s been punished for it before I think in ’10 or ’09. Ultimately a little early on the brakes for me.

    52. If everyone one involved in F1 is so insistent on improving the ‘show’, then why would they penalise some harmless racing and entertainment, therefore reducing the likelyhood of a driver making an exciting overtaking manouver in the future. It goes against the entire philosophy of F1 in this current era…completely ridiculous!

    53. Last year Petrov swerved multiple times infront, ironically, of Hamilton and “only” got a warning.

      Now Hamilton does the same to Alonso (apparantly but I didn’t see this on TV) and gets a penalty equal to that of Alonso.

      Typical that Alonso’s unaffected :( Can we go one race this year WITHOUT a penalty?

      1. And we wonder why there wasn’t much overtaking last year? The fear of being penalised; now it will happen again and the new rules will have less effect.

        1. Alonso was definitely careless, but it was like Raikkonen on Webber in Brazil 2009 (up towards Turn 4; from memory), however neither were punished.

          Therefore to be consistent neither Alonso or Hamilton should’ve been punished; this is why Formula 1 is confusing to viewers (as Jenson said in Press Conference regarding the Malaysian GP today).

    54. Hamilton moved across the track quite a few times, and was very forceful in his defence (not in the collision incident though), and so I’ve voted that I thought he should have had a penalty, although I was surprised to hear that either had been penalised.
      Alonso was punished for his own stupidity by losing his nose.

      1. Hamilton moved across the track quite a few times

        Yeah, the race last for 56 laps …

    55. The stupidest decision I have ever seen in my 15 years watching formula 1. What is going on??

    56. I think I am done with this weekend after this.

      The weaving is ridiculous. The racing line involves moving across the circuit, he deviates once by a fraction (and Alonso follows him) and then resumes the racing line as you’re allowed to.

      Alonso then hits Hamilton in which only he loses anything but gets a further penalty.

      What a joke.

      1. It’s just depressing isn’t it?

        1. You’d think the fact they have a load of time to look at replays would allow them to make the right decision! I mean it’s not like football where a ref has to make a decision in the heat of the moment…Its a bit like if in the enland germany game there was a second desicision by a man who could watch the replay of the ball clearly over the line but then still disallow the the goal! these stewards clearly have no idea what they’re doing!

    57. So hamiltons weaving was the lap before, any video?

    58. Quite simply staggering. I cannot for one minute understand how a penalty has been given to either driver – but particularly Hamilton. A few thoughts:
      1. According to the stewards, Hamilton has been punished for making more than one move to defend his position. For those of you in the UK, you can rewatch the incident here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/13028035.stm) – can anyone explain how Hamilton can be accused of making more than move? As I see it, he exits turn 3 and starts to move his car across to the right of the track – he doesn’t weave or make a particularly dramatic move, he just eases towards the inside of the track. Alonso then hits him almost immediately after they exit the corner. There is no time for Hamilton to make a second move, let alone more than that. To say that he made two or more moves it simply not defendable.
      2. Assuming for one minute that Hamilton did, as the stewards have concluded, make more than one move – surely then Alonso cannot be blamed for the collision caused by it? The two decisions are therefore completely inconsistent?!
      3. Furthermore, how can Alonso be penalised for causing a collision when much more blameworthy drivers have caused accidents and got away without any kind of reprimand? I’m thinking Barrichello in Melbourne two weeks ago – trying to dive down the inside of Rosberg from about half a lap up the road but only managing to ram the German out of the race. In contrast, Alonso had been close behind Hamilton for at least the last lap and the incident he caused only resulted in minimal, not race-ending, damage for Hamilton. If Alonso deserved punishing for the incident today, then there should have been penalties for Vettel in Istanbul last year (collision with Webber), Webber in Melbourne/Singapore (both collisions with Hamilton), Barrichello in Spa (collision with Alonso) etc.?
      Finally, I just want to say that I think this is a really worrying development. Just when it appeared F1 finally had adopted a degree of commonsense in the way races are stewarded, this decision comes out that is reminiscent of the overly interfering stewarding of 2007 / 2008. I agree that drivers do need to be penalised if they are quite clearly behaving in a way that is outside the rules or dangerous (e.g. Schumacher’s move on Barrichello in Hungary last year), there does not need to be blame apportioned and punishment handed down for every racing incident. The punishments should be reserved for only the absolutely clearest breaches of the rules and not for marginal incidents like the one today.

    59. What a terrible decision by the FIA.. Both drivers should not have been penalised. It was a minimal of movements from Lewis driving on the straight while taking a line to enter the next corner. Alonso made a mistake and he’s front wing was damaged which cost him a potential podium in my view. Why punish him again…

      The FIA should be consistent and penalise Vettel for changing directions at the start of the race against Lewis or when he overtook Button at Melbourne.

      You might as well hand out the points in qualifying if the overtaking or defending a position is illegal. Everyone is reluctant to race because of these decisions today.

    60. Alonso and Hamilton were awful, rotten cheaters today. Both fully deserve their penalties.*

      But why not penalise Vettel for weaving at the start too?

      *Note: sarcastic

      1. Since no message was brought out mentioning either car was under investigation between lap 45 and the rest of the race,it seems quite possible to me that a complaint has been filed to the stewards by one of the teams involved ,resulting in a counter-complaint by the other,like another poster already mentioned.
        And yes,Vettel did indeed perform some flagrant weaving,but at the checkered flag which is waved at the finish line,not at the start.
        At the start he made the one blocking move he is allowed to make when LH tried to pass him right ,after which Hamilton and Vettel steered left to get back on the racing line before the first turn right.Nothing wrong there I guess.
        Besides,McLaren would have filed a complaint there too,if they would have had a case.

    61. I was just thinking about the rule that you can only change line to defend your position once. This year with ALL the marbles if you change your line to defend it is likely you will be running on the marbles. If you did and found that to be the case wouldn’t you be kind of stupid to run all the way down the straight on them? You may as well give the place away. So that would mean you would need to change your line twice.

      Hm. ….I suppose if it really was that big a disadvantage you wouldn’t actually change your line to defend anyway.

      1. interesting point. Maybe its better to just stay on line and force the car behind onto the marbles? But the driver’s should have the right to defend their places, on straights like the ones at Sepand and in China, one move is clearly going to do nothing to defend your position when the car behind has KERS/DRS. Needs to be reviewed in light of KERS/DRS being introduced.

    62. On reflection, the stewards have got the penalty on Hamilton right. He was given a warning last year for weaving when defending against Petrov on the exact same straight. I still dont think Alonso deserved a penalty, but if he hadnt been handed a penalty, there would have been a furore on many websites.

      1. Wasn’t Hamilton’s weaving with Petrov on the main pit straight? This incident today happened after turn 3?

        1. Watch the video, Hamilton weaved on the pit straight.

          1. He didn’t weave! First, he went from the outside of the last corner into the outside of the first corner in two phases, and then he changed the direction once (settling for the mid of the straight in the braking zone).

          2. Fair enough – I didn’t realise the story had been updated to say that the penalty was for Hamilton’s conduct on lap 45 on the pit straight.

      2. He hasn’t been given a penalty. Ok – he finished the race 20 seconds later but in the same position and with the same points.

        1. exactly Pete – how can that be considered a penalty, hahaha, its pathetic.

        2. So he got a penalty. He recieved a 20 second time penalty.

    63. If Hamilton’s penalty is for that video its crap, Hamilton twitched once, twitching isn’t a move, then he moved once and then took his line for the corner.

      1. twitching isn’t a move

        I don’t think the dictionary’s on your side on that one.

        1. Well its not a full move.

      2. The camera angle, distance from the incident and width of the track give the illusion that it wasnt a massive distance that Hamilton moved off line, but I reckon it could have been as much as 5-7 metres Hamilton moved off line.

        1. Exactly!
          In my estimation, he didn’t move more than 2 metres – which on a 200-400 distance is nothing.

    64. After seeing the video of Hamilton’s move on the pit straight, I think that penalty was correct.

      He moved off-line twice and he had the black-and-white flag for exactly the same thing last year.

      Not sure about Alonso’s though.

      1. One point i’m not clear on is how the Hamilton “weaving” came into the remit of the stewards. I only thought the crash between them was being investigated not earlier on. If we’re going to open up the whole of the race for post-finish investigations we’re opening up a can of worms….

      2. Keith – do you think Vettel moved more than once into turn one on the first lap? I can count at least three and possibly four changes of direction before Vettel enters the first corner??!

        1. keith, KEITH! Perfect time to have that as a signature to quiet down all the “British biased” nonsense. Or put it in your roundup.

          I’m sure your not bothered by it, but I agree with you on that one considering Lewis.

      3. Did he? As I understand it, the racing line is diagonal across the straight. After taking that line after the final corner, he veers to his right before moving back towards the racing line which he continues on to the first corner. Is that not one move? I certainly can’t discern any other major direction change.

        Contrast that with a certain young German who many felt should have been penalised last time out. At the start said individual edges to his left, towards the racing line. He then sees Hamilton coming across to try and slipstream him. He then moves right to try and break said tow and Hamilton follows. One move. However, Vettel then edges back towards the middle, so Hamilton tries to duck under. This is then blocked by Vettel moving back towards his right. Seeing his way blocked, again, Hamilton then moves back across to try and get past, a move which Vettel mirrors, taking him beyond any reasonable defence of his actions.

        Riddle me that stewards.

      4. I am not really convinced, they seemed rather minor moves. But I have to admit, I am not really big on “no weaving” anyway, at least not to the degree it apparently is disallowed.

        I still do believe that the only reason he got it, is because the stewards were asked to investigate Alonso’s move (by McLaren?), and I dislike that. It is again a matter of being inconsistent; I also find those after the race penalties really annoying. But I don’t suppose it makes a bad day all that much worse for Hamilton.

        I do think Alonso made a slight mistake in misjudging how slow Hamilton got out of the corner to get the “avoidable incident”, but
        certainly not enough for a penalty.

        With the causing avoidable incident too though, I am not quite sure what the criteria are – often I have thought them: if the driver is a) in a backfield car, or b) having a rather bad race; or c) we feel a punishment is asked for; then punish; otherwise, no let’s not. It does still seem to be really unpredictable, and arbitrary, making me often wish for them to just keep punishments down to the worst, most clear, cases only.

      5. Spot on. This whole 1 move rule came about after Belgium 95 after Schumacher’s overly robust defence of Hill. It has been around that long. Moving more than once, even slightly breaks the tow of the car behind ensuring that an overtake cannot be made. It was the right call.

      6. Hamilton did not weave in the brake zone. A lot of others did.

    65. If the FIA are going to penalise someone where its they have to say exactly where it happened. eg. lap number and corner number, otherwise I have no idea what exactly he was punished for or if the stewards have just made it up to be cruel.

      As for Alonsos penalty i’d have let it go as a racing incident since he did more damage to himself then Hamilton. Though by the letter of the law I guess he should be punnished. However by doing this dont the FIA risk dissauding drivers from trying to overtake anywhere but the DRS zone.

      I think the 20 seconds is meant to be equillivent to a drive through but surely crashing into someone is worse then making an extra move on the straight which i think came nowhere near a collision so maybe if they had to be punnished alonso should have had 30 seconds as a stop/go rather then a drive through.

    66. Stewards have to be strict if DRS is to work, weaving is very dangerous when slipstreaming!

      1. but is enhancing overtaking more important then taking ‘racing’ out of the actual race? The drivers, particularly on straights like the one in Sepang, simply cannot defend only moving once. Racing is completely removed and places just change too easily. This DRS is too artificial for me. More power, less downforce would be far better for racing, but with Health & Safety these days it will sandly never happen.

    67. David Livingstone
      10th April 2011, 14:25

      It’s because Hamilton got a penalty for the exact same thing, same track, this time last year.

      1. David Livingstone
        10th April 2011, 14:26

        Meant to read “it’s funny because.”

    68. The reason the penalties were necessary is because they broke the regulations of the sport. Thems the rules, if you don’t like them, don’t watch!

      1. If everyone who didnt like 1 rule in F1 didnt watch, I doubt anyone would watch at all…

        1. It drives me mad that all of the rules are constantly complained about, and that the politics overshadows the racing. The stewards enforced the rules and that is the end of it…

          1. The rules are hardly enforced consistently.

            Even DC who is usually critical of Hamilton said nothing about it at the time. An expert like Brundle couldn’t see any weaving at all and din’t even mention it in his post-race analysis.

            Meanwhile Massa gets away with it in Australia and Vettel does exactly the same to Hamilton at the start. Both unpunished.

    69. Totally wrong decisions, what would be in a Villenevue/Arnoux Digion GP situation? Weird that the stewards are giving such penalties with the drivers almost spechless about, there were no team complains, so why??

      1. No kidding…glad youtube still has that clip up…F1 has turned into a real joke. Know wonder Kimi has gone nascar

    70. “Alonso’s finishing position is unaffected by the penalty, but Hamilton drops from seventh to eighth.”

      hehe of course. Have they ever handed out a time penalty that doesn’t affect the finishing position after the race (to a non-Ferrari car)??

      1. Hamilton’s drive-through at Valencia last year was essentially the same thing.

        1. Is Alonso’s 20 sec. penalty for his front wing hitting Hamiltons rear tyre ?

    71. Utter nonsense,if the race stewards are gonna be this biased,then i quit F1…i was yelling at the start that Vettel shouldv gotten a penalty,he blatantly weaved to stop Hamilton from gettint thru…Utter Disgrace F1 is turning out to be

    72. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL97dW1wNk

      *Whistles*…Vettel at the start moves more than once on Hamilton.

    73. Well Hamilton has been warned in the past over excessive weaving so it’s about time his penalised for it.

    74. Neither deserved a penalty it was simply a racing incident. I can see that and I HATE Alonso, and I am a huge Hamilton fanboy; I make no secret of that fact. Even the most biased of people can see that it is a racing incident.

      As for the weaving I really don’t know how they can justify it, on the start/finish straight the racing line is diagonal. Lewis comes out of the last corner and starts following the racing line, he then weaves out of the racing line towards the middle of the track and returns to the racing line to brake for turn 1. Isn’t that the standard way of defending? He also did exactly the same down to turn 4 moving off the racing line to defend and back onto it to brake.

      Why can’t the stewards have some consistency in their decisions, Massa was far more dangerous in Melbourne by comparison to what we saw. Petrovs little accident today was also very dangerous and could have caused a huge accident if there was anybody else around when he had it.

      Both drivers should lodge an appeal if they can, although it’s unlikely Ferrari will appeal as it hasn’t actually affected their race result.


    75. Just re-watched the start and Vettel moved four times on Hamilton and no less excessively.

      What an utter farce.

      1. What about Lewis’ weaving infront of Button, Alonso and Massa just behind?

        It was like a fly on dung…


      1. Let’s hope so, it is still a long season to go.

        1. I mean, I am really annoyed by it, but on the other hand, at least it doesn’t hugely change anything much.

          Hamilton already said he expected it after the stewards meeting, and said he didn’t really care all that much, at least not compared to starting 2nd and ending up having to hang on to finish 7th, or 8th. Just a bad race made a tiny bit worse; something to get over.

          Alonso likewise was happy with his race-pace, sorry the whole thing stopped him from fighting for a podium, but shrugged about the penalty (of course, HE didn’t even lose a position, so that helps).

    77. If Hamilton was penalised why was not Vettel, his weaving after the start was far worse and much more obvious. Once again the result is changed after the race by the FIA. Someone should tell Bernie that ruins the races far more than the engines possible making slightly less noise

          1. oh yeah. I have seen the start several times but I hadn’t noticed all those micro changes of direction Vettel was doing.

            1. Never noticed that at the start. That’s naughty!

    78. I can understand the rationale behind the stewards decision to peg Hamilton, but the way I see it, if he’s weaving off the racing line, that doesn’t really matter, does it? If he weaves in and out of the racing line, then that is objectionable, like Hill did against Schumacher (1:12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FoNBq1AHXw , but he didn’t, he was well off the line.

    79. While on the subject of penalties: I just read that Buemi thinks his stop-and-go for speeding in the pitlane during the race was too severe. I thought he had gotten a drive-through only, but I guess not. I don’t really recall, didn’t this used to get a drive-through only? Maybe the stewards were grumpy today or something?

      1. The caption on the world feed that came up said he’d been given a stop/go. I was surprised too, and i don’t think we seen him serve it. They normally give a drive through for pit lane speedi.g but maybe he was a long way over the limit or nearly caused an incident.
        Its also possible that the ex driver steward (have we had him before?, does he have history?) was in a particularly critical mood today, or just wanted to show what he can do so the FIA pick him again.

    80. Do the FIA know the rules? Vettel’s movement showed far more weaving and dangerous driving at the start of the race. Unless this rule does not apply on the first lap….

      1. I think the rule was partly invented after driver complaints about weaving at the start, actually.

    81. So the upshot is…
      Button is the legitimate winner of this GP?

      1. Maybe that will be announced in China. After which somehow both he and Heidfeld will end up being disqualified, Vettel wins again, Webber 2nd and Massa joins them on the podium according to the official results.

    82. Both penalties feel totally unnecessary. To interpret Hamilton’s defence move on the straight as (dangerous)’weaving’ obviously needed some time for discussion by the stewards. Therefore how can a driver decide instantly where is the line between a legal or illegal move. Alonso already penalized himself on top of that it was obviously not intent to hit Hamilton.
      Rules against drivers racing instincts provoke decisions which leave us behind with a bad taste in the mouth. Could imagine the stewards themselves didn’t feel too comfortably with their decision, but had to act according to the rules book. Who was the assisting drivers steward today btw?

      1. Emanuele Pirro was the driver’s steward this race.

        1. HounslowBusGarage
          11th April 2011, 13:19

          Twelve pages of comments on a pair of penalties.
          I think the reaction of the Fanatics exemplifies the weakness of the Race Stewards positions. At each race, a different set of stewards attempt to impose a complex set of driving standards that they may or may not have ever seen before. And just to make things more random, there’s a ‘special guest star’ ex-driver who may not have ever been in this situation before.
          And of course, they have to make real-time decisions. I’m not saying that all Stewards are incapable, but it is self-evident that standards of stewarding and the logic of their decisions is going to vary between sage-like and asinine from race to race.
          In Australia, we saw a fairly inattentive Stewarding regime, and yesterday we saw something more like a ‘knee-jerk reaction’ approach.
          Neither set of Stewards were the best, were they? I don’t like this approach where the application of the rules is so open to interpretation. I suspect that a set of permanent Stewards, travelling from one race to another (or maybe two or three sets, taking it in turns) would be likely to deliver a more consistent, equitable and logical regime.
          There’s too much at stake to leave it nineteen sets of different people.

    83. Seems harsh in both cases, having watched the videos Keith posted a few times.

      Lewis’ move off the racing line, then back on to it, seems a very picky interpretation of the rules. Fernando’s bump into Lewis was certainly avoidable, but it was just a mistake.

      I can see why the stewards might want to penalise in both cases (to stamp out certain behaviours), but given that no one would have batted an eye-lid if no penalties had been given, I wonder if they are sending out the right message.

    84. Looks like few people agree with me ;) Oh we do love the drama though.

    85. I wonder who started this:
      – the stewards by themselves?
      – Ferrari by complaining to the stewards?
      – or McLaren in the same way?

      If it originated from the stewards, than the old You guys are too slow is appropriate. They should’ve signalled it immediately, although I might have missed their message during a commercial break. For the rest, I guess they stuck to the rules. A bit hard maybe…

      But my guess is that the Stewards were triggered by one or both teams.

      1. Perhaps Ferrari felt that Alonso would have got by down the straight and not been able to mess up into Turn 4?

        I think it was just the stewards though.

    86. Ok watching this again Hamilton is indeed weaving slightly and it does warrant a penalty when rules are applied so strictly but if they penalize this, why does vettel get away without a penalty after much more obvious moving left and right at the start? Why did Massa not get a penalty for similar behavior in Melbourne. Or the many other similar battles we saw down the pit straight with other cars today?

      Also, If alonso gets a penalty for the incident why didn’t the Toro Rossos that shunted schumacher and heidfeld in australia got penalties.

      Rules are rules, but at the very least they should be applied consistantly. Now that DRS and KERS are here to help with overtaking, FIA stewards are now proving the biggest obstacles. If you try the overtake and make a mistake = possible penalty. If you defend staunchly = possible penalty.

      Might as well just do the qualifying and call it the race result if they’re gonna handcuff the drivers like that. If this continues it is going to put many people off F1, myself included.

    87. Bang goes another nail in the coffin of what was once the sport called F1, and I dont even need to see the replay of Vettel weaving at the start to think that this is an unfair penalty, and the Alonso penalty just says if you dont overtake in the Micky Mouse zone with the gizmos your risking a penalty if it goes wrong. Oh Hum as long as the newbs enjoy the `show` thats all that matters, cant say Ive been this disillusioned with F1 since May 2nd 1994.

    88. We need to forma a Formula One Supporters Association FOSA in order to have a common voice against such bull**** decisions from the FIA, the drivers are either racing or just driving one after the other from start to end. If we go on like this, after every collision a traffic warden would come out with the safety car and ask for their licences and insurances while the others wait in line LOLOL

      1. Although I don’t agree with your point of view, a FOSA would be a cool idea!

        We could have an election where we run Keith against James Allison and Joe Saward for president!

        I volunteer as ‘permanent observer’, whose role it will be to watch every race live on track. However I do think this a task which requires more than one person. Maybe we can find some volunteers for that here?

        But seriously, it really would be a good thing if F1 (FOM, FIA, FOTA) actually listened continuous to fans, instead of sending out one questionnaire per year.

        1. The FIA are happy to upset fanatics, by their very nature they will continue watching and supporting this ‘sport.’ Example the WWE actively scripts stunts like this, fans love arguing. The point is if people are talking about you/it, then they are succeeding. Keep a look out for more nonsense from F1. And before anyone asks, no I’m no longer a fan as in my eyes these ‘shows’ are just that, shows. Thankfully we have touring cars and MotorGP. No wonder driver go rallying, its for the taste of reality.

    89. Wow these take the prize for worst penalties ever. What an absolute joke.

    90. Good decision to punish Hamilton, but how can Alonso be punished for causing a collision when it was Hamilton’s weaving that caused the collision.

      1. it was Hamilton’s weaving that caused the collision.

        No it wasn’t, they were separate incidents.

    91. Silly Penalties, try and promote overtaking then penalize drivers for making mistakes! Neither driver deserved them, Hamilton was no where near as aggressive as Massa has been for the last 2 races and Alonso made an error that cost him and no one else time.

      1. Exactly Alonso just did an error nothing worthy and Hamilton did much less than other drivers got away with, especially Vettel at the start of the race. ***?

    92. Give me strength.

      This sport is becoming so sanitised it is unreal. I cant believe there are actually people that think either of them deserved any sort of penalty.

      I thought it was called ‘Motor Racing’ for a reason. Absolutely ridiculous.

    93. Harsh in both cases, probably. I did not notice a message during the race that the two of them were under investigation for anything.

      In the same light, I’m wondering what the rationale was for Buemi apparently not getting a drive-through penalty for speeding.

      Hopefully, there will still be some official explanation as to why this was decided.

      1. He didn’t get a drive through because he got a 10 second stop & go penalty instead.

        I was gobsmacked at the time but it seemed to slip quietly by. I think the stewards were on crack.

    94. This is kind of penalties are the easiest way to kill the sport.

      Liverpool legend Bill Shankly said once “The trouble with referees is that they know the rules, but they do not know the game.”

      I think the stewarts act the same way…

    95. Whether they should have got a penalty or not, i’m not sure. But i’m sure about the fact 20 seconds is too long, even 10 seconds would have been more reasonable.

      On the other hand you just need to think ‘that’s racing’ and the stewards should just accept collisions happen!

    96. I was thinking Hamilton deserved it as I saw it during the race. For Alonso I’m not sure, he wasn’t the only driver to hit another today.

      1. Sure. On the basis that today’s collision apparantly deserved a 20 second penalty, then let’s look back – Vettel should’ve had a 2 race suspension or something after Turkey 2010, and indeed after hitting Jensen at Spa in the same year. Team orders were allowed for god’s sake.

    97. I’ve just watched the two videos above and I stick by my original decision. Hamilton quite clearly moved more than once. If your argument is with the rule you’re over-looking the purpose of the thread, it’s the purpose of the rule.

      As for the collision, that’s a bit harder but Hamilton did look very slow coming out of that corner…purposefully so.

      1. So why not Vettel at the start?

        He may move more than once, but he only moved off the racing line once and it is generally agreed you can move back to it into the corner.

      2. Are on something? I can see applying the vert strict letter of the law that Hamilton gets a penalty but to imply Hamilton deliberately slowed up to make Alonso crash into him (a very dangerous place for both)? You must be smoking something or just not understand motor racing.

    98. ok, then it was clearly wrong when last year he made several zig-zags in front of petrov and never got punished! but why punish alonso?
      who else was punished for the same reason today? there have been several same incidents!
      did he intentionally touch hams car? did he do any damage to him? who was the one that had to get back to the pits for repairs? why not punish ham too? obviously slowed down! we could hear his engine revs!

      1. If he had slowed down he would have been further penalised and alonso wouldn’t have been penalised so that obviously is total BS. The stewards will have looked at the data to confirm this. So why make such an accusation?

        1. Agreed, i never heard his engine revs drop, and if they had, the stewards would defo have picked it up on the data and he would have been disqulaified

    99. I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand the Alonso charge resulted in nothing but damaging his own front wing, Hamilton looked like he didn’t even feel the hit also his tire looked good. For me it was a racing incident.

      On the other, Hamilton’s weaving should not be left unnoticed, since it would encourage others to do the same. Last time Hamilton was doing such thing, when Petrov was attacking him last year same place, he escaped penalty. Escaping it again would raise concerns about lack of consistency and leniency towards Hamilton.

    100. Well that’s me done. I watched F1 a lot in the 90s, tuned out when the Schumacher era became all too much, came back just in time to see Alonso and Hamilton, and stayed tuned largely because of the 2007, 2008 and 2010 seasons. 2009 annoyed me intensely with FIA scuppering the teams who invested in KERS and allowing the double diffuser, but okay, a one off maybe. Last year was excellent. But the KERS plus DRS just turns the races into a series of artificial overtaking events. Maybe when they’ve got rid of them I’ll tune back in. For now it’s just a waste of too much time to follow a sport that’s had any real passion drained from it.

    101. Neither show have got a penalty, total ridiculous!

      If F1 keeps this up with its crazy gimmicks and shockingly bad tyres, it might gain some wrestling fans (from WWF or what ever it is) but its going to start losing fans of 30 years :-(
      Maybe they want a new age of mindless followers (not fans) that like places changed after the race like a soap opera, can’t help but feeling a decisions like this is for publicity. Its racing not synchronised swimming or wrestling.

    102. Sorry I can’t see a problem with either?

    103. Matt Pepprell
      10th April 2011, 17:00

      I think the penalty for Hamilton is silly, but the rules quite clearly state: no weaving. But I do not think Hamilton’s weaving was dangerous, not like some of the weaving he (and others) have done in the past.

      Also, Vettel weaving at the start – this, I don’t think, was dangerous. Thus, both in my mind was just racing.

      If McLaren can demonstrate to the FIA that the collision involving Alonso and Hamilton caused damage to Hamilton’s car, and thus slowed him down, then the penalty is, perhaps fair. That is, your finishing time + 20 seconds. However, in my view, this was also a racing incident.

      So, to summarize: a good application of the rules, but quite ridiculous in my opinion. However, rules are rules, I guess

    104. Certainly unfair for Hamilton. Alonso simply try to overtake too soon and colided. And that’s it, but, anyway, I’m not a steward…

    105. Hamilton’s penalty was not for the incident with Alonso, but the previous one with Heidfeld. This is supposed to be racing, you are not allowed to defend, and if you make a mistake you are penalised. Alonso misjudged his closing speed and damaged his wing. He should not have been penalised. Hamilton defended and was penalised. What is this, Is this supposed to be racing, or not. I want to see racing, real racing. If I want to see choreographed racing, I will watch Nascar

      1. No it wasn’t. As Lee McKenzie tweeted, Lewis’ Penalty was for the lap before Alonso hit him.

    106. Can’t explain how much I dislike Ferrari+Alonso but honestly, the Alonso penalty is just absurd.
      Moral of the story? Don’t race each other, wait till you zoom past using DRS. No DRS, No overtake.

    107. That there would be a penalty for either didn’t even cross my mind as I watched the race. This came as a shock. Ridiculous.

    108. I am not a Hamilton fan, and I despise Alonso. That being said, I don’t think a penalty was warranted for either driver.

      If anything it seemed that Hamilton purposely braked to startle Alonso causing him to try to swerve to avoid him. But still, I think what they were doing was just plain good ol’ fashion racing.

      It’s frustrating to me as a fan that such artificial devices such as KERS, DRS and rapidly degrading tire compounds are injected to compensate for crappy racetracks, while skillful, aggressive driving is punished.

      We might as well be racing robots.

      1. Braked?!?!?! Some people………

        One word: Specsavers

        If Hamilton had braked it would have shown on the trace analysis that the stewards saw and he would have been given a further penalty, in fact probably disqualified. So that OBVIOUSLY didn’t happen.

        1. Easy there Davey, don’t get yer panties in a bunch. I apologize if it sounded like I was implying that Hamilton purposely did that to screw with Alonso, it’s just that during that transition the disparity in speed was quite shocking. I shouldn’t have typed that. Your first name wouldn’t be Nicole would it? Heheh.

    109. in principle, it is really absurd and ridiculous. it is almost like saying : now you have DRS to you overtake cleanly in straight line so no more messing around…sad
      those penalties are pointless because in the end they penalised themselves on track having to pit.

      hamilton waving wasn’t so obvious today, but watching him waving in front of petrov last year was a clear breach of the rules, and yet he wasn’t penalised.
      and finally, he is now complaining that alonso hasn’t lost any position with this 20sec penalty…he can now feel what alonso felt in valencia last year :)

      1. watching him waving in front of petrov last year was a clear breach of the rules, and yet he wasn’t penalised.

        He should have heeded the warning.

        1. Keith, normally I agree with your opinion, but this time I’m slightly confused, I can’t think of any other sport where an athlete is punished partly because of a warning he got in another season. And my main issue with this is the stewards are inconsistent, this was nothing compared to other instances of blocking in both this race and in Australia .

    110. 1. Post race penalty. Stupid
      2. What is the logic in using time penalties? They both get time penalties but only 1 has really been penalised. All whilst we are supposed to have more consistent calls. Stupid.
      3. Is ham not just trying to break the slip stream?
      4. Alonso hit Hamilton and I assume they have ruled that ham didn’t lift? How can anyone defend the use of a penalty there?

    111. Regarding the weaving from LH at sepang 2010 that some of you are mentioning: the reason LH didnt get a penalty, as far as I am aware, is that this rule was put into the regulations only from 2011. In 2010 it was more of an gentlemens aggrement. But I agree, the penalties are pure BS, and especially the non-consistency of it all is the worst part. Look at Vettels weawing in the start, why isnt that also punished? Its just absurd.

    112. I don’t agree with any of these penalties. First on Hamilton’s, I think don’t think they should penalise drivers for weaving that easy. And for Alonso’s, I say let them race. If the stewards will hand a penalty for every little incident the drivers may not risk an overtake for one more reason, apart from the risks that the pass involves anyway.

    113. weaving more than once happened all the time during the race, it seems to be like in the premier league, virtually all throw ins are foul throws but never get penalised, if they penalised hamilton then they should of handed out warnings/penalties to a great many others, alonso’s on the other had was a pure racing incident

    114. Wow, so if you misjudge a corner, damage your own car and the other guy continues on without any affect on his car or impediment of his progress whatsoever, you get a penalty? If Alonso had a right to rage on about unfairness, this is the case (rather than his silliness after Valencia.)

      Hamilton’s penalty is only slightly less absurd. It seems the FIA takes it seriously when the DRS-enabled McPassing is frustrated by the faintest resistance of the would-be passed driver. God forbid something endangers The Show.

      1. Indeed. Lets give a rondom driver a toyota prius to drive. Very green and lots of FIA approved “overtaking” guaranteed. He would have to get an exception to pass the 107% rule though.

    115. Surely Hamilton must be the most penalised driver in recent history? lol

    116. Idea! How about they make it easier to pass so drivers aren’t forced to so vehemently defend every inch of the track around them?

    117. as i understand it, hamilton recieved the penalty because the drivers were warned in the drivers briefing that doing the sort of weaving he did would result in a penalty.

      also let us not forget that hamilton recieved a warning or 2 for similar last year, since he hasn’t learned from those warnings i believe a penalty was a fair call.

      im far more confused by alonsos penalty.
      ok fernando did hit hamilton but lewis neither got taken off or recieved any damage as a result.
      plus alonso losing his front wing and costing himself a possible podium was penalty enough.

    118. Younger Hamii(Formerly Younger Hamilton)
      10th April 2011, 18:25

      Here’s an example of the Stewards intentionally trying to ruin exciting Battles on the track by giving ridiculous penalties out with invalid excuses/reasons,AWESOME!!!!! Great Job FIA,Great Job!!!

    119. Here’s my suggestion for the Hugo Boss/Mclaren race suit design competition… http://yfrog.com/h0qaxsmj

      1. Bit off topic but that looks really good, better than the proper suit IMO! :)

    120. Nothing to see here.

    121. Neither one deserved a penalty! Simply put, did anyone feel that either driver should be penalized after watching the incident the first time? Hope not. My first reaction was, “What a stupid move from Alonso!” He just wasn’t patient enough, he would have passed Lewis later on, he had 10 whole laps and was faster than him anyway!

    122. After studying the first Vid top of page I can only say this is a crock of… for the following reasons, time stamps refer to first video.
      20secs- Ham an Alo enter straight
      22secs- Both proceed along `racing line`
      23secs- Ham begins right hand off line defence of position.
      28secs- Both return to return to racing line.
      29secs- Ham begins turn in to 1st corner on a `fast in, slow out` racing line
      29secs- Ham hits a big piece of marble and straightens not weaves to resume a straight `slow in, fast out` line. Note the huge amount of marbles Ham is avoiding with He`s straighting move.
      30secs+…The rest is History, where it should of stayed.

      1. Think I might of got my slow ins an me fast outs the wrong way round, or was it slow….anyway the physics still hold true

        1. Forgot to mention if you look at the Vid at about 30secs you see Alo darting out after tailgating Ham, perhaps a portent of things to come. Remember if you are insured and try an claim with a `I ran into the back off them` they will just think `I love days like this`. I think the hot weather got to the stewards!

      2. 23secs- Ham begins right hand off line defence of position.
        28secs- Both return to return to racing line.

        I don’t know if you neglected to see, but that is two changes of direction.

        I think it’s a little harsh, but I did mention at the time with the people I watched it with that that could be construed as more than one change of direction. Hamilton even said he expected it as he did change direction more than once.

        As for the Alonso penalty I’m quite surprised by this; it seems the precedence from recent years that if you caused an incident but only your car is damaged that it is generally ignored and put to a racing incident.

        1. You can move off line once to defend then youre allowed to return to the racing line, Ham then starts to take a faster line into the corner, see`s and hits the marbles then returns to a straight run in to the corner. The more I watch it the more I think this penalty is a joke. As for the coming race in China the FIA have opened a can of worms here that will see teams calling race control on a minute by minute basis.

    123. Having seen both the vids of the “infringements” I can’t see that anything other than a racing incident involving Hamilton and Alonso took place. The footage of the Hamilton “infringement” is nonesense in overall terms. There was much more robust defence of positions going on all over the place.

      Seems to me that someone was flexing their muscles by penalising the big boys today. Very sad end to a good race.

    124. I get Hami’s penalty, but Alonso’s? first it was a graze and he didnt affect Hamilton’s race at all…he was penalized on his own…true 20sec don’t make a difference to Alo but the idea of penalizing a driver for such a stupid error that in itself was a penalty is pure stupidity.

      1. didn’t affect hamiltons race?(I realise for some reason before hand hamilton had a problem)but he damaged the rear of hamiltons car, did you read the results correctly?

    125. Right…
      Lewis’ Penalty
      Lewis was penalised for weaving the lap before Fernando hit him. However, from many to shots, and to many fans, this is not what i would call weaving! Last year, yes, and im surprised he wasn’t penalised. Although (Im a Hamilton fan) As soon as i saw him move across the track i thought, he’s gunna be penalised for who he is, and who he’s against. Bearing in mind the Driver Steward was Emmanuelle Pirro, an Italian! I agree Lewis should have been penalised for weaving BUT, only if the stewards had been consistent and penalised him for it last year, as well as penalising Massa in AUS and Vettel at the start. If you’re gunna have a rule, have consistency.
      Alonso’s Penalty
      Alonso was penalised for no other reason than the Stewards simply trying to keep an uproar from happening. If’d they’d penalised Lewis but not Alonso, even more fuss would have kicked off, so they ensured the penalties would only affect Lewis.
      It’s a simple case of Wrong Place, Wrong time. The stewards need consistency and less biased decisions.

    126. well this is right up there with Spa 2008.
      The FIA are a joke and get a proper driver steward who would actually see that was a racing incident.
      This sport really does shoot itself in the foot sometimes

      1. Look on the bright side, at least it wasn’t for the lead.

    127. Gnarly Racing (@)
      10th April 2011, 19:12

      How are you supposed to defend, then, on the widest track ever? Against a guy who has 10 or 15 km/h advantage on you because he can open his wing up?

      Have to say I’ve been impressed with Massa’s defensive driving in both the first two races. He’s clean, moves early and decisively.

    128. Haha this formula 1 is a joke DRS tires that are kaka and now penalties that aren’t deserved. If this is a status quo I think I’ll stop watching. ALMS GT1/GT2 you don’t see any of this rubbish. Why is it the Americans are 15 years ahead of F1 in terms of safety and regulation body?

      1. Why is it the Americans are 15 years ahead of F1 in terms of safety and regulation body?

        Because they don’t have any rules to do with bad driving?

    129. ARTICLE 20.2 should be scrap because it takes away the essence of the racing itself. I understand the need to make F1 a safe racing sport but to punish drivers for that kind of defending moves is just not right.

    130. Seb did the exactly same thing at the start… weaved left, then right then left again and Hamilton had no choice but to just stay behind him…

    131. Lewis impeded another driver on the straight by moving his car off his chosen line more than once. Alonso didn’t avoid an avoidable accident.

      I wonder how many would be voting for “Neither Deserved a Penalty” if Alonso had cut Lewis’s tyre or if Hamilton had taken Alonso’s front wing off?

      1. There is more than one line into a corner.

      2. Alonso was not impeded on the straight. Unless you are suggesting that he somehow would have travelled the length of the straight faster but for the presence of Hamilton’s car. In the later incident, if Alonso had cut Hamilton’s tire, then it would have been a case of Alonso causing an avoidable accident, so to speak. The results matter in these situations, just like a dangerous tackle will be more likely called if the victim goes down (even if he takes a dive) Even so, it would have been marginal to penalize him. People cut tires in close racing all the time and the stewards take no note. Both penalties were ridiculous, notwithstanding some formalistic justification.

    132. maybe hamilton weaving is penalizeable cause he did weave though he just went off the racing line and got back on it, but alonso’s was a racing incident (i am not an alonso fan). at this rate webber should be banned from f1 for crashing into the lotus last year! :P

    133. This is becourse they pick the wrong stewards,and they are jokers always they get things wrong next time we need peaple with expriance not ex rally drivers lol

    134. The way I see it, Hamilton’s driving did not warrant a penalty. Yes, he moved about a bit, but:
      1. Alonso was not yet close enough to make a move, and was not really impeded.
      2. The movements were only slight. He certainly left enough room on either side for Alonso to go.

      I liken Hamilton’s moves to boxer, hopping from feet to feet to keep his opponent guessing; he certainly didn’t block Alonso as he tried to pass (which is arguably what Vettel did at the start).

    135. They should have penalised alonso for coursing the accident, ham was not to brem remember vettel run into the side of button 2010 there was no penalty so whats is all thi about always wrong dis.

      1. That’s not entirely correct.
        Vettel recieved a drive through

    136. I’m a McLaren fun (admittedly, I prefer Button) but even I think that Alonso didn’t deserve that penalty – Hamilton’s lack of speed out of that corner is very noticeable, you can see Alonso trying to duck out. At first I thought he was being greedy and trying to get a big tow, but now I think he did get caught out by the difference in speed.
      Looks to me that Hamilton’s penalty is to set an example as to conduct on the straights, best to stamp out weaving especially as the DRS causes greater speed differentials down the straights now – I’ll be keeping an eye out for weaving in Shanghai! Cracking race today, 2011 oughta be a good year!

    137. If these were worthy of penalties that we’re just heading towards the stewards lottery for each race quicker than I thought; I mean if this is the standard then we’ll end up with loads of penalties every race! Sigh, another day’s racing ruined by insane stewarding decisions.

    138. For me the worst things about the stewarding in F1 is the inconsistency. A quick browse of this forum will learn that most agree that Alonso’s penalty was ludicrous. Yes, he hit the back of Hamilton, but nothing happened (unlike, say, in the case of Barrichello clobbering Rosberg off the road two weeks earlier). It just gives me the impression that the stewards are just a bunch of local with s*d all experience in motor racing.

      What we need is one set of stewards for the whole year, consisting of men (or women, of course) knowledgeable in both F1’s rules and their application, and in motor racing. For me, this also rules out people whose only qualification is having been a racing driver. As Damon Hill pointed out last year, when he was forced to decide whether or not Schumacher deserved a penalty for his last-corner pass, he was uncomfortable rendering that judgment, because really he is no expert in the application of the rules.

      1. I completely agree, there should the same set of stewards at all the races and they should travel with the F1 circus.
        And after the race they should be asked questions by the press based on the decisions they took during ( or after ) the race.
        Im really getting sick of this stewards nonsense.
        I dont think I will continue watching F1 very long, too bad considering this website rocks!

    139. Ridiculous penalties in my opinion.

      Hamilton did move more than once but it wasn’t massive weaving from one side to another. And his moving did not actually influence the outcome of situation, or create an dangerous situation.

      Alonso misjudged the overtake on the next straight. OK, mistake, it happens. And he was penalized by physics, lost his front wing, why add another fake penalty to that? I don’t recall Webber getting a penalty for Valencia last year.

    140. Great moment of racing spoiled. I don’t like Ham but can’t blame him, Alonso already punished himself.

    141. how did vettel get away with doin more than 1 move at the first corner ? its like in australia button got a drive through for doin an overtake buy leaving the race track that was deserved then vettel did the same thing against button with all 4 wheels of the track an got nothing ??????

    142. I’m definately not a hamilton or alsono fan (Go Webber!) but do think both penalties were harsh. Can turn fans off the sport.

    143. what do you expect when Piironi is the drivers representative. He know **** all about racing. He was crap, he is crap. I bet he’d try and give HRT a boost up to 3rd if he could.

      1. Pirro, not Pironi. Pironi died 24 years ago.

        1. I think a rotted corpse would have done a better job.

    144. Im with the stewards on this. Both drivers broke the rules, both deserve a penalty

    145. looked like normal racing to me…

    146. Lewis moved out of his way to not slipstream him, surely that isnt same as blocking a move? He then does one change of line to defend, then back to racing line for corner.

      If you cant do that then whats the point?


      1. I get it now. Hamilton was trying to move out of the way?

      2. The Last Pope
        11th April 2011, 1:59

        Exactly. I just can’t understand how stewards don’t see the difference between weaving(dangerous bloking) where the driver behind moves first to overtake and then the defending car moves to block, and breaking a tow, where the driver infront moves first before the one behind copys him to steal more slipstream. In this situation I think it should be the attacking driver that should be limited to the amount of moves he can take across the track as it is he who is choosing to put his car in a dangerous situation not the defending driver.

        This penalty is just stupid.

        1. I was being sarcastic. Hamilton was not trying to break a tow. If you’re just trying to break a tow the car behind isn’t going to be as close as Alonso was.

          1. The Last Pope
            11th April 2011, 3:06

            :rolleyes:Maybe you should try using smilies then.

            And you should watch the incident again. Of course Hamilton was moving to stop Alonso slipstreaming him, he certainly wasn’t blocking him, how can you block someone by moving out of his way?

            The FIA has forgoten what weaving is. Weaving is multiple blocking of a car behind. Car behind moves to overtake, car infront moves to block.

            Neither this nor the 2010 Hamilton-Petrov case is actually weaving.

            1. Neither this nor the 2010 Hamilton-Petrov case is actually weaving.

              The regulations don’t actually mention the word “weaving”. It is the word “move” that is used. You are only allowed to “move” once.

    147. I think making more than one defensive move includes more than just changing track position. Thus I think changing position once, then doing something else as well will be interpreted as more than one move, thus a penalty applies.

    148. So, Alonso got a penalty that doesn’t affect his race result?

      So how is that a penalty?

    149. A penalty doesnt have to affect the result.

      1. It seems that it doesn’t affect anything – So, what’s the point?

        1. The point would be to let Alonso know that the stewards suspected it of being a deliberate hit. As there was no effect on his placing it’s not a big deal if it really was an accident. Alonso has a reputation for cynicism and is also too good a driver to make blunders like that. He didn’t barely touch Hamilton’s tyre, he fully hit it. I can’t help but wonder if he was hoping to puncture or at least damage Hamilton’s tyre, and I reckon the stewards felt the same way.

    150. I think Hamilton tried to make sure that Alonso don’t get a tow from his car,just like he did in 2010 with Petrov,so in those days no penalty was impose to Hamilton. Alonso just misjudge his pace, so I think the penalty wasn’t justified.

    151. I don’t usually comment on threads that I don’t really have anything new to add, but I’m hugely frustrated with these superfulous penalties. Neither driver drove recklessly, Hamilton’s “weaving” was nothing more than moving back onto the racing line and Alonso simply misjudged his overtake; a racing incident, nothing more. This sort of battling for position should be encouraged, as it’s exactly what makes a race exciting to watch. By punishing what is essentially good racing and then altering the results of the race afterwards, they simply cause the sport to lose credibility.

      1. David Johnson
        11th April 2011, 7:37

        Like puffy I rarely comment on threads, but these penatlies have damaged f1 in my eyes. If vettel only defended once off pole then I was watching a different race, and I reckon there were dozens of other examples. I’m not sure whose to blame, maybe an over zealous steward, maybe hamilton previous crimes caught up with him, but my gut is sure bernie is not too far from the cause of this. FIA F1 is slowly becoming as fixed as WWE !!!

    152. Alex Wurz said on Austrian television, the Ferrari called for a penalty for Hamilton at the FIA. Ferrari have exerted so much pressure on the FIA, so that Alonso was punished therefore.

    153. What’s this? Two drivers actually racing eachother? In F1? We can’t have that. 20 second penalties for both!

    154. According to MArtin Brundle’s twitter feel it was Ferrari and Alonso who brought up Hamiltons ‘weaving’ with the stewards. Before that they were not even investigating it.

      Is this the only way Alonso can overtake these days? By getting the other driver penalised?

      He’s such a spoilt brat. I seriously hope he never wins another race let alone another championship.

      1. So if you spot someone else cheating you shouldn’t report it to the authorities?

        McLaren had better shut up about Red Bull’s front wings then.

    155. Who was the driver steward this race?

      Was he a former F1 driver?

      I watched the race and no way should either driver have received a penalty.

      1. It was an italian driver “Emanuele Pirro” with nothing other than 37 starts and 3 points to his name.

    156. Keith, could you create a poll questioning whether Vettel should or should not be penalized for his weaving at the start of the race.

      Personally I’m repulsed by the double standards in F1. Either we have rules that apply to all – or we have none.

      1. I think it’s better if the poll will be to ban this nonsense rule of 1 single move to defend. Let these champions fight for their positions on track freely but safely, that’s why they are paid for not for losing positions after a stewart ruling.

      2. Thanks for the suggestion. I’m currently trying to get a response from the FIA on the Vettel question.

        But I’m not going to run this poll because it would look like I’m singling Vettel out when I expect there are other examples of drivers doing similar things and not getting punished.

        1. MS invented or at least engrained in us the weave and chop off the line along with the FIA’s inaction to do anything about it…there was protest by the likes of DC and JV back in the late 90’s about MS’s behaviour, the more-than-one-move-to-defend tactics the swerve and chop right off the line, but the FIA’s inaction to penalize MS basically implied it was legal…

          That is different from making a secondary defensive move throughout the rest of the race which has been deemed illegal…

          My thing on this is if LH was doing something illegal in front of FA, how can FA be penalized for hitting someone that theoretically only got hit because they were doing something illegal?

    157. Matt Hubbert
      11th April 2011, 9:33

      Is there any reason that these so called penalties could not have been applied in the race as a drive through. If the stewards saw these “Incidents” why could they not have given out the penalties in the race. Once again they are making a mockery of the sport by inconsistent decisions. Surely they could have made these decisions quicker to avoid this.

    158. The weaving rule is to avoid this:

      Shortest way down a straight line is straight. Yes, you come close to the curbs on the right side down the pit straight if you follow the race line, but then you should just pick your line and don´t hinder the one behind from racing. If you´re so fast, don´t make the one behind catch up and don´t block by going zig-zag on a straight.

      I´m for the weaving rule and thus Hamilton deserves to be punished. Active blocking is not racing.

      Alonso´s wing touch was a typical racing incident to me and I´m happy that the extra 20 seconds didn´t alter his received points.

      Although FIA is perhaps a step forward here. Perhaps to prevent teams from using the sharp front wing edges to take out some leaders in front and thus gain higher positions. Hmmm… interesting. Then Alonso´s – no, Ferrari´s – punishment should be DSQ for the whole season ;)

      1. Your link shows Hamilton AVOIDING slipstreaming Petrov. He was not blocking at all, actually the opposite, Petrov was following him.

        This is entirely different from blocking.

        With Alonso yesterday, his first move was also “anti-slip”, subsequent move was defensive line, then retaking the racing line = no penalty.

        Alonso didnt deserve a penalty either.

    159. why don’t we just eliminate any possible weaving, blocking, passing, bumping, clipping, crashing, back-markers, disrupting airflow tow, or any racing (and its ultimate incidents)? i suggest we simply have a 270km straight, divided into 26 lanes. when the lights go out, just go.

      let’s improve it for the show – every 5 km or so, if your DRS light is illuminated, raise your flap. every 15minutes, a random percent chance that some sprinklers can come on (vary the amount of water, though…). why stop there, why not have Tusken Raiders take pot shots along the way?! just think how many fans you could squeeze into the stands – all with A-grade seats! Utinni!

    160. Can we stop using the word “weave” and use the one that is actually in the regulations, which is the word “move”.

      The regulation allows only one move.

      If you watched the overtake that Alonso did on Button, you will see that Button only ‘moved’ once.

      This reminds me of the Red Bull wing regulation. People are seeing things in it that aren’t actually there. The wording is very important.

      1. You’ll also see Vettel moved at least three times.

        All we ask for is consistency

    161. Since neither car was under investigation during the race,it would seem the stewards were not planning on penalising either of them.
      But I do think the stewards should have more freedom in chosing an adapted penalty in special circumstances like whistleblowing about events they weren’t going to punish in the first place.
      In this case then (if it is indeed Ferrari that started first)they could have given a 30″ fine(the regulatory 20″+a 10″ crybaby bonus) which would place them both under Kobayashi.
      Not knowing what the outcome would be if the stewards could hand out fines and penalties for unsporting conduct might “encourage” a couple of teams to think twice before they step into that office.

    162. I dont understand why hamilton got a penalty and vettel didnt, its clear in my eyes that vettel changed direction more than twice at the begining of the race, and he has not been given a penalty. Whats the poing giving Alonso a penalty because it was a racing incident it didnt effect hamilton (much) from what I can tell, Whats the poing giving him a penalty if he does not lose a race position, its rather unfair considering Hamilton lost a place!

    163. Vettel did indeed perform some flagrant weaving,but at the checkered flag which is waved at the finish line,not at the start.
      At the start he made the one blocking move he is allowed to make when LH tried to pass him right ,after which Hamilton and Vettel steered left to get back on the racing line before the first turn right.Nothing wrong there I guess.
      Besides,McLaren would have filed a complaint there too,if they would have had a case.

    164. I think both penalties are appalling, but particularly the penalty against Hamilton – I had to watch the clip several times before I realised he was being penalised for his behaviour on the pit straight – this is completely normal defensive behaviour. If it was so bad, why did the stewards not announce that Hamilton was under investigation during the race? No one guessed beforehand that there was any problem – the BBC team surmised Hamilton had been pulled in by the stewards purely to give his account of the collision with Alonso. Ridiculous!

    165. I think f1 should scrap the racing and just do a qualifying shootout, that way we remove all the risks of crashes and stupid criminal decisions by the stewards. F1 is as bent as a builders elbow and run by a bunch of little hitlers. I’m completely sick of this sport. Lewis should retire as he will always be robbed of decisions, forget his title haul he has nothing more to prove.

    166. The penalty is for blocking while defending. Hamilton wasn’t defending his position since Alonso was still way back.

      This rule is meant to be applied in the breakibng zone. Not during an entire straight.

    167. I would really like to know what the definition of weaving is because from what I saw Hamilton did nothing compared to Vettel at the start!

      The inconsistency is a joke!! And if they start giving 20 sec penalties for what Alonso did no one will go for an overtake!

      FIA need to start doing post race analysis on themselves!

    168. It was the wrong decision. David Coulthard in the clip was right, Alonso’s car understeers causing the collision. Hamilton, just prior to the Ferrari making contact with him, holds his line but I could not see him weaving across the track. For me, it was a racing incident which punished both drivers enough without them getting penalties.
      The most important aspect here though, is that both Hamilton and Alonso have lost massive ground to Vettel. He is the man they need to catch, and beat, if they want the championship.

    169. Couldn’t sit and read all 400 plus responses to this but as a general comment I would say that during the race making more than one move to defend is considered an infraction, but weaving and chopping at the start has been deemed ‘legal’ by the FIA’s own ignoring of it in the MS/Ferrari era with MS being the master of it…at one point there was an outcry of protest(I’m talking late 90’s) regarding MS’s behaviour but he continually did it and got away with it, thus setting the precedent…

      In other words, the FIA deems the weave and chop acceptable off the starting line heading into the first corner, but after that, only one move allowed, theoretically…

      I guess if anything I have to wonder how FA got a penalty if in fact LH was doing the unfair defending…if LH is guilty of more than one move to defend, is it not he then that caused FA to hit him?

      I don’t see how FA deserves a penalty if the guy in front of him was doing something illegal…kind of like if my store is robbed do I deserve jail time alongside the robber for being a victim of an illegal act?

    170. I was surprised either driver got a penalty to be honest.

      Alonso only hurt his own race when he hit Hamilton so I thought he wouldn’t be punished for that reason, even if the stewards thought it wasn’t a racing incident.

      As for Hamilton I haven’t managed to see the actual video, I watched the BBC race re-run when I found out about the penalties but they didn’t show footage of Hamilton weaving and the link from this site is no longer available, if they punish drivers for blocking they should at least make sure the footage is available for the fans to see.

      If he did move twice while defending then I don’t think there can be any complaints because of the new rules, but then why did Vettel not get at least a warning for his moves at the start or Massa get a warning for his defending against Button in Australia.

      I think the FIA should clarify the rules in cases like this and make it clear what Hamilton was punished for, and say why it is different to similar instances of blocking which were not punished.

    171. HounslowBusGarage
      11th April 2011, 18:29

      I replied to someone’s post on page 12 of theses comments. His post wasn’t contentious and neither was mine, but both have been removed.

    172. Copy/Paste above comment into Microsoft Word, Print, then blow nose on printed document.

    Comments are closed.