Fernando Alonso, Mark Webber, Singapore, 2013

Webber to get grid penalty after lift from Alonso

2013 Singapore Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Mark Webber will receive a ten-place grid penalty for the next race after being given a lift to the pits by Fernando Alonso after today’s Singapore Grand Prix.

Alonso stopped to pick up his rival after his car broke down on the final lap of the race. Webber rode back to the pits on Alonso’s sidepod.

The stewards ruled Webber had “entered the track without the marshal’s permission between the commencement of the formation lap and the time when the last car enters parc ferme” and handed him a reprimand.

As this is Webber’s third reprimand of the year he will automatically receive a ten-place grid penalty for the next race. His previous reprimands came in Bahrain, for contact with Nico Rosberg, and in Canada, for going too quickly while yellow flags were displayed.

It is the second time a driver has received a grid penalty for collecting three reprimands – Pastor Maldonado also did at the Brazilian Grand Prix last year.

Alonso was also given a reprimand for driving “in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person”. The stewards added “two cars had to take avoiding action” when Alonso stopped to pick Webber up. This is Alonso’s first reprimand of the year.

Webber gave Alonso a lift in a similar fashion at the Nurburgring in 2011.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2013 Singapore Grand Prix

Browse all 2013 Singapore 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.

189 comments on “Webber to get grid penalty after lift from Alonso”

      1. Well really, safety first as always. As much as I like to see drivers showing camaraderie in that way, it should be a thing of the past. Watching Webber fall under the wheel or anything like that would be quite gruesome. Just like waving the checkered flag on track with cars driving by at speed, fans standing on corners mere feet or inches away from cars being driven in anger, the day of the F1 driver-rider has gone by.

        1. Safety first, sure, but that didn’t look remotely dangerous to my eye

          1. There’s further video to the link posted above as well – this is CCTV footage showing Webber running towards Alonso’s car as the Mercedes arrive on the scene:


          2. Yeah now that I’ve seen that I understand. That was way too close. :S

          3. I think you should consider reposting that CCTV footage in another article if possible, because it changes how people are feeling about it so much.

        2. Okay, stopping on the middle of the track… pretty dumb. I guess I can understand what the stewards were thinking.

        3. Exactly what I was thinking.
          I’m really surprised that so many other users are bashing the stewards. Especially after seeing the video the reprimand seems totally reasonable. The stewards made many wrong decisions in the past imo, but this is not one of them.

        4. Safety first. Ditch comradery. That is the worst thing I have heard in a long time. What sort of pathetic nanny state is sweeping across the world. Both Webber and Alonso are easily the best drivers when racing each other. They are more than capable of such a simple feat.

          Hamilton is a big boy (so people would have you believe) he was perfectly capable of driving around on the cool down lap. Stupid decision.

        5. This is one of few traditions of on track camaraderie left, it has been going on since motor racing began and I have never heard of anyone being injured by it. If I am being charitable I will call it political correctness gone mad, if I am not being charitable I would call it petty officialdom flexing their muscles to feel important.
          FERNANDO I salute you, Mark please launch an appeal, if not for do it to for the sake of the last sporting tradition of F1.

          1. …if not foryourself.

          2. @hohum Hear, hear!

          3. @hohum , @rodrrico – Personally, I love this particular display of camaraderie amongst normally rival racing drivers. Likewise I cannot recall of anyone actually getting hurt doing this. But, safety and common sense tell us why it should not be done, not political correctness or pathetic nanny state oppression. Several of my favorite drivers were killed while racing when conditions were less safe than now. It could still happen in this day and age. It could happen to any of us on the motorway at any time. How do we deal with it? We take precautions and preventative measures to be as safe as possible. We eliminate expected risks and try to prepare for unexpected risks. That’s common sense.

            I would hate to think it would take an injury or death of a favorite driver to get someone to ask, why was this allowed? I totally get the point that these drivers are in an elite group of skilled drivers who risk their lives every time they get in the car. But, one wrong turn today could have resulted in an unnecessary tragedy.

          4. @bullmello,@npf1, and yes it could happen to anybody crossing a street, it felt a lot more dangerous to me crossing the street in Naples on a pedestrian crossing with the lights in my favour but that’s another story.

      2. After having seen the onboard from Hamilton and the CCTV footage, I’d like to change my ‘wow’ as a reaction to the stewards’ decision, to a ‘wow’ of how utterly dangerous this situation was. Heck, with some bad luck, Kimi could have run Mark over, and Lewis crash into both of them.

        I figured both Alonso and Webber would be smart enough to stop a car at a place where it’d be at least somewhat safe; this wasn’t.

        1. @npf1 Yes me too. Rosberg was too close to comfort there . See in the cctv footage as to how close to webber he is when he zips by

    1. For once I agree with the stewards, he took an advantage…

      1. he took an advantage?

        1. It was a joke. I have to practice my English…

    2. first I thought this was too harsh – then I saw the footage and have to say they were right. Both totally deserve the reprimand.

    3. That was my first thought. As a diehard WEB fan my blood started boiling.
      But his on his third reprimand? That actually sounds about right. He can’t just do what he likes, no matter how great of a bloke he is. :)

      1. Edit: he’s* on his third reprimand.

  1. what

    1. I take it back. Totally deserved reprimand. Tough luck.

  2. What? This is beyond stupid….

    1. This was the picture of the day. Stupid stupidity

  3. This is a joke :/ — I mean common!

    1. come on, you mean?

  4. I’m just….. jeez….

  5. 10 grid places?! Ridiculous!

    1. For something so trivial a reprimand considering the possible safety issues is just. It’s entirely unjust that such a trivial warning has due to the operation of the new system has caused Webber to be given a 10-place penalty.

      Although I can see the safety issue being a concern, it also comes off as another bureaucratic, ham fisted attempt to smother many unique characterful moments of the sport. If the rules start to operate to deprive viewers and spectators of such moments as when Alonso stopped on track last year in Valencia to celebrate with the marshals and home crowd – would he also be given a reprimand this year on some nebulous ‘safety’ ground? – then it’s only to the detriment of the sport.

  6. It’s not completely safe, understood. But this kind of thing make F1 colder, and ever more boring…

    It was probably the icing on the cake after a rather good 20 final laps to see Mark getting the lift from Alonso. Two rival teams and drivers. No harm done and a lovely thing.

    Yet, reprimand and a 10 place penalty…

    What Rossi would’ve done if these rules were followed in MotoGP when he scored his 100th win? or Lorenzo planting the flag when he wins.

  7. It’s not completely safe, understood. But this kind of thing make F1 colder, and ever more boring…

    It was probably the icing on the cake after a rather good 20 final laps to see Mark getting the lift from Alonso. Two rival teams and drivers. No harm done and a lovely thing.

    Yet, reprimand and a 10 place penalty…

    What Rossi would’ve done if these rules were followed in MotoGP when he scored his 100th win? or Lorenzo planting the flag when he wins.

    1. Someone said on twitter that two other drivers have to take actions not to hit Alonso. And if another car have crashed againts Alonse while carrying while carrying WEBBER it would have being a disaster…

      It seem harsh but I do think there is some logic behind it, and this race sterwards don´t have the fault or to count previous reprimends…

      1. reprimand .okay . fine. okay . 10 place penalty ludicrous !!!!!

        1. If you pick up three reprimands then you receive a 10 place grid penalty. Nothing new about that.

        2. well, it is the rule. I don´t think stewards have an excell with reprimends for every drivers. If I´m correct a reprimedn if the smallest punishment you can get, so it is in Webber´s own his previous acts.

        3. the 10 spot grid drop is because Webber already had 2 previous reprimands, not directly because of this incident @hamilfan

        4. @celeste @bascb @mazdachris . Okay , now I understood why . Thanks for clearing that up

      2. @celeste

        Someone said on twitter that two other drivers have to take actions not to hit Alonso

        As described in the article.

      3. @celeste I agree with that, it’s not safe, but…

      4. They had to ‘take actions not to hit Alonso’ at about 80 kph.

        At their level of professionalism it’s like you or I having to take evasive action at 12 kph on a bicycle.

        Webber’s either gone suicidally mad, or perhaps he is well-prepared to judge the real risk involved (as opposed to the risk perceived by outsiders through a video) about a thousand times better than the stewards.

        1. There is a huge difference in hitting someone with your bicycle at 12 kph, to hitting someone with any sort of car at 80 kph, though.

          1. The point is that evasive action in each case should be performed quite comfortably. Just because the movement needed looks swift doesn’t make it terribly dangerous. These pilots have excellent enough reflexes to do ‘swift’ half-asleep.

          2. As I’ve said on the forum, on a street circuit you can’t really see beyond the corners. You also need to consider it’s the parade lap, drivers talk to their teams, are a little more relaxed..

            There is a incident you can see on YouTube between Hakkinen and Irvine, during Monaco 1996. Irvine is doing a 180 after getting it wrong, and Hakkinen just drives right into Irvine’s rear. Hakkinen wasn’t going very fast, but because he could not see Irvine before he made the corner, both cars were retired.

            Fact is, standing still on the middle of the track is dangerous, now matter how good your reflexes are. Di Resta still shunted, as did Ricciardo. Hamilton once took out Raikkonen at the end of the pitlane. F1 drivers aren’t supermen, especially when you can’t even see a parked Ferrari picking up a driver until you’re into the corner.

    2. Seems like the rule makers have come out against this before, if memory serves. As @fer-no65 mentioned it may not be the safest thing, but I love the sportsmanship and sentimentality demonstrated.

    3. Apparently it was a lot more serious than I thought…

      1. I take back what I said after watching the video. They were at the middle of the road, in a blind corner…

  8. the stewards decision seems right to me, it is risky after all.

  9. what???? give me a break man…….

  10. WOW!! Talking about people being stiff implementing the rules…This is just sad…

  11. My opinion of this decision, and the stewards who made it, is unrepeatable in polite company. If uttered, it would turn the air so blue it would wrap right round through red, yellow, and green, before returning to blue.

    1. Having seen the video footage, Alonso deserved the reprimand. Penalising Webber is still utterly ridiculous though.

      1. No, Webber waved him down and Kimi was outside of him.

        1. Having now seen the CCTV footage, I agree Webber deserved his reprimand too. Still undecided on the 10-place grid drop, but that’s not the fault of the stewards, and is therefore a separate debate.

  12. RIP F1 romance…

    1. I guess that wiht the advantage of this now being a bit later, and having read a lot of journo’s who saw the CCTV shots of how Rosberg and Hamilton had to go each one side of it to avoid a collision, its safe to say that this actually was the right call by the stewerds @andae23.

      Hey, at least its a new one for the statistics. 1. Webber first to take a 10 spot grid drop for 3 reprimands this year. 2. Both drivers getting penalized for the incident which happened after the race!

      1. Yeah, jumped to conclusions a bit too early on this one. :P

    2. Bromance*

      1. @beejis60, that ties in nicely with the headline on Autosport.com: “Hamilton shocked by Webber, Alonso” :-)

    3. RIP sportsmanship

  13. thats some really weird stuff those stewards are smoking
    what the hell? both of them don’t deserve a reprimand. and the penalty is dreadful.

    1. Check out the CCTV footage as posted by Kieth above and you can easily see why they got reprimanded.

      Remember, the penalty is for three reprimands. Alonso had no strikes so he’s find, but Webber was already on two.

  14. Rules are rules, drivers know them and should abide by them. I like to see those pictures as much as anyone else but it’s dangerous and we all know that the sport tries to eliminate the inherent danger of racing as much as possible. So the reprimand is totally understandable, even if it hurts us fans…

    1. @rez0: You sum it up nicely:-)

  15. They only gave him a reprimand for the lift.

    He got the 10 place penalty for having 3 reprimands, as per the rules. So it wasn’t a direct 10 place drop for having the gall to do something frivolous.

    1. @muzzleflash Thanks for clearing that up. do you know when he got the other two ?

      1. got it .Its there in the article itself sorry.

        His previous reprimands came in Bahrain, for contact with Nico Rosberg, and in Canada, for going too quickly while yellow flags were displayed.

        But this is too much isn’t it .

  16. Michael Brown (@)
    22nd September 2013, 17:43

    The title of the article is misleading, as the penalty comes from Webber’s three reprimands accumulated, not this incident.

    1. I think the title is accurate even though it could be more informative. The problem is that people only read the title and not the article itself.

    2. @lite992 The title of the article is entirely accurate. Webber’s penalty arises from the circumstances of him getting a lift from Alonso.

      1. Is not. The penalty arises from 3 seperate circumstances, not just this one. A better title would be “Webber receives grid penalty after thirth reprimand from lift alonso”. I know, it makes it tediously long, but the current title simply isn’t accurate.

      2. No, it isn’t. Just like Michael Brown presumably did, I too read that penalty as a direct result of the incident. Which obviously paints everyone involved in the decision as borderline lunatics. With the reasoning specified in the article though the penalty seems reasonable – justified even. A poor title.

      3. @turbof1

        The penalty arises from 3 seperate circumstances, not just this one.

        Two of which happened months ago – it is the third one which is news and therefore that which is of interest here. Besides which, as I say, there is nothing inaccurate in the headline.

        There’s nothing I can do if some people choose to draw misleading inferences from it. After all, the headline only serves to get you to the article, which explains everything in detail.

        1. Two of which happened months ago

          That’s not a relevant point. They happened this season and thus combined contributed for an exact 2/3 of the penalty. As the emphasis clearly lies on the penalty, not the third reprimand, it shouldn’t be directly linked to the cause of the third reprimand in the title, but to the 3 reprimands themselves.

          Look I don’t want to nag, and people who draw the wrong conclusions from the title still make the mistake of not reading the article, but if we had nothing to go on, no background info and article whatsoever, except the title, I think everyone would draw the conclusion he received the penalty solely because of the lift. The reason why it’s not accurate is because it goes against causality.

          I also don’t want to give the impression I want to force it down on you; it’s your site and if you placed as headline “Alonso deliberately picked up Webber to trick him into getting a penalty” I still would not have something to say about it. It’s only helpful advice.

        2. Also I’ve looked around at other sites. All of them just titled that he got a penalty (without any mention why in the title, which is then explained in the article) or they mentioned the penalty, the infringment and the fact it was his third reprimand all in the tittle. Even sites which journalism I normally would only describe as rubbish, remarkably done that (still one “off-title” doesn’t pull down the quality here, mind you).

        3. To describe better what happened, something like this could have been appropriate:
          Alonso and Webber reprimanded – Australian’s third gives him grid penalty

        4. @turbof1

          That’s not a relevant point

          Yes it is, because the article is communicating an item of news.

          You might just as well have told me the headline should also mention that the rules were changed a while ago to give drivers penalties when they get three reprimands. How much of the back story do you expect me to recap in the modest space available in a headline for the benefit of people who aren’t paying attention?

          if we had nothing to go on, no background info and article whatsoever, except the title

          That’s irrelevant because you do have all those things to go on.

          The headline serves to get you to the detail because obviously you can’t cram all of it into a headline.

          1. I really like to give you my opinion on all of that why I think you are wrong, but what’s the point of it :P? Keith, I think it’s better here to agree to disagree.

      4. It is an accumulation… but that doesn’t stop it being stupid…

        It like the 3-strike rule in the US where someone gets life imprisonment for stealing a hershey bar.

    3. @lite992 true, but keith always does that, i complained before about such misleading headlines, but he has his reasons “apparently”.

      1. I read the headline and thought that, then i read the story and hey presto, it made sense. I’m sure Keith’s “reasons” are the same as any journalist who wants you to read their story. There’s nothing wrong with that.

      2. @f1007 You arriving at an incorrect assumption does not make the headline inaccurate, it makes your reasoning faulty.

        1. Couldn’t this be the universal self-serving justification behind everything that’s ever been worded manipulatively? It’s not the fault of the way it’s worded, it’s your fault for understanding it incorrectly…

          Mind you, I’m not alleging you were knowingly manipulative with that title; simply used an approach that was not necessarily optimal.

          And, fair-minded and reasonable as you are in practically everything you say or do on your website, such problematic titles do slip in now and then, and your reaction afterwards invariably seems to be one of adamantly standing your ground. Kind of unlike you, ‘judging’ it by your site’s overall ethos which is admirable.

          (Please don’t take offense; the above tries to be a civil-sounding opinion.)

        2. Sorry @keithcollantine.
          I agree with you that the headline looks s=fine, but when you say:
          “You arriving at an incorrect assumption does not make the headline inaccurate, it makes your reasoning faulty.” From a research I read, that’s wrong.

          The single biggest mistake in communication is believing you have delivered the message in the best possible way, and when one misunderstands it, it becomes their fault.
          And plus, you have been a little picky on comments lately. (see first page, a comment made by @celeste ). I know there is a lot of criticism, but that’s what you get for running a forum like website.

          1. The single biggest mistake in communication is believing you have delivered the message in the best possible way, and when one misunderstands it, it becomes their fault.

            There is nothing I can do to ensure 100% of people read every headline correctly. Even if you could completely guard against people simply getting the wrong end of the stick, there will always be those who choose to misinterpret things to serve their own point of view or indulge in cheap points-scoring.

            It’s interesting that you picked up on that particular comment as I was responding to someone who implied I had ignored a salient detail in the article which I had not. This brings me back to my point: all the detail you need to reach an informed understanding of what happened should be there in the article and I’m happy I’ve done the best possible job I could. The headline is an accurate characterisation of what happened and having read the article you could not possibly reach inaccurate conclusions about the events unless you chose to.

      3. Michael Brown (@)
        22nd September 2013, 21:09

        @f1007 It’s not Keith’s fault the readers can’t read the rest of the article. And judging by the comments, they’ve missed what Webber was reprimanded for. He got a reprimand for reentering the track without marshals’ permission, not because he got a lift from Alonso.

      4. The simplest way of making clear what the reason is @f1007, is that its a headline, which purpose is to give an indication of the what the article is about so people will go look at it to read the article. By definition it cannot say everything.

  17. This is ridiculous! And in his last year in F1? come on guys, not cool! I actually liked this scene; two drivers racing hard and then showing friendship.

  18. Penalty wasn’t 10 grip places but a reprimand and that’s right I think. Its just bad luck (of his own making) that it happened to be 3rd of this year.

  19. It’s a shame that this has happened, but I do understand why Webber and Alonso had to be reprimanded.

  20. I haven’t seen the footage of the incident but one person who has says the penalty was justified:


  21. I agree, the reprimand is deserved, because the rule exists and the drivers know about it. Not following them means, that they should expect some kind of punishment.

    The only reason why this has fans steaming is Webber’s bad luck, that this has been his third reprimand in this season. Nobody would’ve cared a lot about this reprimand two weeks later, but now people will remember because of Webber’s 10 place penalty.

    Red Bull can be happy, that Vettel is doing all he can to win both championships almost by himself, because Webber certainly hasn’t helped much this season.

  22. Apparently, the way that Alonso stopped the car meant that the two Mercedes had to suddenly swerve out of the way to avoid a crash.

    That does sound fairly dangerous to me.

    1. Then should Alonso have a penalty for dangerous driving?

      1. @ragwort
        He did get a reprimand, as said in the article.

  23. A reprimand is fine if it was considered dangerous. And a few journalists seem to be saying that it was https://twitter.com/adamcooperf1/status/381822430349512704

  24. The stewards for this race need their heads examined.

    1. Never mind, I take it back. It was dangerous, but it still seems like Alonso did the dangerous thing by stopping at the exit of a blind corner rather than Webber for accepting the ride. I still don’t think that Webber should have been reprimanded.

  25. I’d honestly feel more secure sat on a sidepod holding onto the airbox inlet and with a leg in the cockpit rather than riding pilloin on a crazy marshal’s moped.

    1. Seriously?

      1. When was the last time you saw an F1 car just fall over? :-P

  26. Well that has ruined the whole race for me! Absolute joke

  27. An appalling decision. Totally over the top.

  28. what seriously….I dont know what to say..and hulk had to give his place back to perez..

    f1 needs a new iphone app, so that the viewers can decide on penalties, think it might be more consistent..!!!

  29. This is what makes F1 suck!! I think this is death for post race lift. Famous once like Mansell and Senna will always be remembered. I think we should make top 10 post race lift moments.

    1. As it is this sport sucks. WDC is totally dead. 1 driver totally dominant for 4 years. After watching for 15 years, never felt like this, even when M. Schumacher was dominating, racing was still exciting.

      1. It’s astonishing that after 15 years of watching F1, you don’t seem to have a clue what you’re seeing.

  30. Stands to reason that if fans showing their emotion after the race is so dreadful (seems to be the consensus on here anyway) that drivers shouldn’t be allowed to either…

    Welcome to the new F1, everybody. Personalities are overrated anyway!

    1. @red-andy

      if fans showing their emotion after the race is so dreadful

      Of course it isn’t. I love seeing fans cheering at races. I’ve done it myself.

      What is objectionable and revolting is this group of hateful people who have taken it upon themselves to jeer at a particular driver no matter what he does. That is not a spontaneous outpouring of emotion, it’s premeditated bullying and it’s contemptible.

      1. Well said Kieth.

  31. A true joke, a fine could solve the problem, too overzealous Charlie Whiting

    1. Whiting doesn’t make these decisions, the stewards do.

  32. Drivers getting lifts back to the pits by their rivals are one of the most iconic moments in F1. As if the tyres n the petty engines weren’t killing the sport already. FIA, had to take this away from me too. I swear i am on my last nerve here. Yea, kill sportsmanship and promote cold hearted rivalry. That’d be good for the viewers.

    Gone are those growling V12s. gone is the concept of wheel to wheel racing. Drivers are afraid to get close to the car in front for fear of destroying their tyres or overheating. I mean, come on.. If you cant get close, how will u overtake??

    Even GP2 is more fun. The guys race as if their life depends on it. The spins, the thrills… I mean, talk about exploring boundaries of the tracks.

    1. Drivers dying in horrible accidents due to lax safety standards are also iconic moments in F1. That doesn’t mean I want to see them again.

  33. Headline should have read: “Webber to get grid penalty after third reprimand”

    But that would make too much sense.

    1. @xbx-117 As I’ve already explained, the headline is accurate.

  34. … just killing the F1 spirit … Rules are rules, 3 reprimands = penalty but come on!

  35. No burnouts, no lifts back to the pits,no non-PR speaking, no beautiful cars, no flat-out racing etc. etc.

    And in the end: no fans

    I can see why Mark is happy to leave this sinking ship

    But hey, at least we’ll be left with memories of the real F1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djxUK9QDLw4

  36. Above 100 km / h while sitting on a Side pod?
    Man, if something broke or Webber slips, ugly accident!
    So even without other drivers having to take evasive manoeuvres, a reprimande is fair. Shame Webber had 2 already, but who’s to blame for those?

    1. @verstappen A strap on seat etc must be created for Webberisque moves like this

    2. @verstappen Disagree. Please stop babysitting grown up human beings. As if it’s the first time. Schumacher, Senna, Alesi, Mansell, Piquet etc etc did that all the time with no problems. Same as doughnuts etc. etc. The organizers seem to be bent on extinguishing the last remnants of emotion in a sport which is fast becoming as cold and boring as a grave. And some fans support them(though thankfully judging by the comments here most don’t) in that. go figure

      1. Grown up human beings can get themselves killed.

        That’s why they have rules.

        1. @mike Sure. Let’s ban extreme sports now-people are in danger of being killed there. Next let’s ban rugby-way too dangerous. After that, let’s stop people from crossing the street-people can get distracted and killed as a result. Then let’s prevent people from having dangerous(for example, anti-government) thoughts-they make them dangerous to themselves and the society. Welcome to “1984”

  37. Ok, that’s the last straw. I’ve had enough.

    1. @brickles Exactly my first thought when I saw this

  38. The reprimand was not simply because he got a lift back.

    The reprimand was because he ran onto the track (To get onto Alonso’s car) by either ignoring or not asking for/been given permission to re-enter the circuit by the race marshal’s.
    The rule that drivers are not able to go onto the track while other cars are still circulating without 1st gaining permission from the marshal’s is a safety regulation thats in place throughout the MotorSport ladder.

    Getting the penalty makes it seem harsh, However it is his 3rd reprimand & 3 reprimands = a grid penalty.

    1. And I would add (after seeing both those inboards and the CCTV footage), that this case very clearly shows one of the reasons these rules are in place @gt_racer, because what Webber did could have ended in a nasty accident, Kimi had his work cut out to avoid him (off course Alonso stopped on the racing line right behind a corner was also a “great” idea).

  39. The title of the article is a tad misleading… getting a grid penalty as a result of having 3 reprimands, not because of getting a ride… still though, it was a fun moment that I really enjoyed…

    Keep sucking the life out of the sport guys!

    1. @rcorporon Actually , it was misleading a bit . And since a lot of people felt that way , maybe it certainly was. The reprimand is fine . Unfortunately the penalty had to be because of the three reprimands . I did enjoy that moment . Don’t know how alonso would have felt having webber’s sweaty legs near his visor ;-).

    2. well, yeah but thats just because theres no good way to get all of that in a headline

  40. Trenthamfolk (@)
    22nd September 2013, 20:08

    It’s this kind of things that makes F1 look like a joke… a laughing stock!

  41. I know that Senna,Mansel and Schumacher would have been very disapponted in the Stewards l

  42. this is complete crap. I actually felt cheered up seeing that after yet another red bull win

  43. This is just silly… If this is dangerous, don’t know how motorcycle racing exist…

  44. Most idiotic decision that i’ve heard in F1.
    Simply ridiculous.

  45. I wonder if this will make drivers be more wary of picking up a reprimand when showing borderline behaviour. After all, that is part of the idea of having several reprimands result in a strong penalty.

  46. To reprimand two of the greatest drivers in the history of F1 for an act of comradery truly amazes me!
    Ahhh Well, the attending crowd loved it and so did I. So much for the stuffy stewards. Sometimes rules just need to be broken.

  47. There’s an external view of Webber running over to Alonso’s car on this website:

    1. @stefmeister ooch! thanks for the link. It was indeed dangerous. But I liked it! a reprimand was deserved though :)

      1. Oh, that is completely different to how I imagined; I thought Aonso stopped and waived over Webber…
        It was amusing to see both Kimi and Alonso stopping though.

        1. I think Kimi was going very slow because he was taking care not to hit Webber there

    2. And one extra from a fan at the side of the track, you can see how much of a shocker it must have been for both Rosberg and Hamilton to see a car parked in the middle of the track there (normally you would have yellow flags for that to warn you)

  48. FIa stamping out as much entertainment as possible again

  49. This looks terrible, and I assumed the grid penalty was for the lift, which isn’t true. I can see why they were reprimanded for it, which is appropriate, but it’s just hugely unfortunate that this particular reprimand caused the grid penalty.

  50. This is ******* ridiculous. Cctv camera shows that it wasn’t that bad. And these drivers are the best in the world. I’m sure Hamilton didn’t have any trouble avoiding them. As for Webber safety he was for sure safe with his leg in the cockpit.

    1. One leg in the cockpit actually makes it more dangerous. And it certainly was “that bad”, the cars were travelling probably close to 100 kph and you can clearly see how nearly one of them misses Webber. Would have been most likely fatal if he had been hit.

      It’s not as if degree “badness” of situation even matters. Webber broke the rules and therefore should be penalized.

  51. Seeing the actual video really changed my view on this. In principle I’m not against having one driver helping another back to the pits, but stopping on the racing line, around a blind corner, forcing other cars to take evasive actions, then speeding up to highway speeds with Webber hanging on (and having his leg partially obstructing Alonso’s view)? Yeah, the stewards were well justified there.

    Alonso’s reprimand I understand fully, but Webber’s….I dunno, I could see them going either way on that. Just depends where he was standing before Alonso picked him up. Ultimately, Alonso is in control of his own car.

  52. Under *these* circumstances, I don’t give a rat’s backside about the “rules” … this was good sportsmanship, friendly, and the right thing to do (plus the fact that for anyone who can “remember back” this was a common courtesy — traditional in F1 — and a very nice thing to see.) Horner and RB, and Ferrari, should appeal this one, if the rules allow an appeal.

    After sixty years of watching GP/F1 racing I’ve never seen anything so stupidly ridiculous.

    1. +1
      I’ve always thought the sport was being ruined by ‘safety’ being taken too far. This makes me sad.

  53. I think it was great that Alonso picked up Webber: it really showed me how small the cars really are. I would never have had this sense just watching the normal TV coverage.

  54. Hilarious comments today. Webber and Alonso both knew the penalties for this activity and they chose to ignore it. They deserved any penalty they got.

    It’s one thing inadvertently breaking safety rules, it’s quite another to blatantly disregard them.

  55. Keith writes: “The stewards ruled Webber had “entered the track without the marshal’s permission between the commencement of the formation lap and the time when the last car enters parc ferme…”

    When did Webber leave the track? After all, he can’t enter (or re-enter) without leaving. I’m pretty certain I saw him on the track for about 59 or 60 laps…

    1. When did Webber leave the track?

      When his car failed & he was forced to pull off.
      He pulled his car up an escape road & went behind the barriers, He then ran back onto the track without been told he was allowed to while other drivers were still going round, this breaks a rule thats in every category for safety reasons.

      1. Twenty two people had an absolute right to be on the track — they’re called “drivers.” Alonso and Webber were two of them. The petty bureaucrats might be right that “behind the barriers” is “off track”, but then so are the pits.

        Two of the world’s greatest drivers didn’t think it was dangerous … why the heck do you defend the armchair umpires? Really, didn’t you think that it was a most courteous, friendly thing to do?

        1. There’s a difference between been on the track driving the cars & a driver walking onto the track while cars are still driving around.

          The regulations are perfectly clear on this, The only people allowed to walk on the wrong side of the barriers while cars are circulating on the racetrack are the marshal’s. A driver is only allowed to providing he is given permission to do so, Webber did not ask for & therefore was not given permission to go onto the track.

          I can’t see how anyone can argue against the reprimand given how absurdly dangerous it was & how it was a blatantly obvious breach of the regulations which are in place lets not forget for the drivers safety.

          Two of the world’s greatest drivers didn’t think it was dangerousAnd those who had to take avoiding action did feel it was dangerous.

          Its not about preventing drivers been given lift’s back to the pits, Its purely about ensuring its done safely. Stopping on the racing line on a blind corner, Forcing others to take avoiding action & having drivers running across a track (Without permission) is not safe or sensible.

        2. nope @paul-a. A driver is on track driving his car, but when he stops and gets out he has to get off the track, and into safety, ASAP.
          Only Marshalls are allowed to be on track, and medical people if needed, until after the race.

  56. Question for those who seem outraged with the reprimand.

    Do you think it is acceptable for a driver to disregard the regulation, not gain the permission of officials to go onto the racetrack, Risk his own safety & the safety of other drivers by running across the track to jump onto another drivers car?

    And for Fernando, Is it acceptable for him to stop in the middle of the circuit causing cars to need to take avoiding action?

    They both acted dangerously, Mark broke the regulations (your not supposed to run onto an active track without approval of officials) & so the reprimand is 100% justified in my book!

  57. The second there is a moment of colour, emotion or excitement along come the stewards to make everything a dull shade of F1 grey again.

  58. People need to read that its not the running into the track by itself that earned the penalty, its the fact it is the third reprimand. Which I thought was harsh until watching that vid from a spectator.

  59. The stewards should receive a penalty not Weber.

  60. Trying to decide which decision most makes me want to give up on F1: this, or cutting to fireworks after Vettel crossed the line but while there was still racing going on. Thanks Bernie, I know what a firework looks like. Thanks FIA, why do you think I’m looking forward to Rush more than every race of the season put together. There are still moments, but if you take away the extreme danger and only leave the appalling coverage (that is still light years behind other major sports) and the petty officialdom, there’s nothing left. Tyre management, DRS overtaking and no joy whatsoever… zzzzzzzz. If i wasn’t employed to write about the rubbish that F1 has become I think this would be the end.

  61. Michael Brown (@)
    22nd September 2013, 23:55

    What I’m getting in the comments is that it’s acceptable to break a safety regulation, as long as it involves getting a ride on another driver’s car.

    1. Yeah well I imagine you will be the type of guy that would support to fine fans for entering the track to celebrate in front of the podium.

  62. Looks like we leave Singapore the same way we left its northerly neighbor, with a slightly bitter aftertaste. I know it’s in line with the current rules and regulations, but it feels like political correctness gone wrong.

  63. I can understand the safety issues involved, but a ten place grid penalty is just retarded. Reprimand them, yes. Penalize one of them, no. If anything, Webber should have been given a fine to satisfy the safety issue, but anything more than that is over the top.
    I for one was glad to see Mark being given a ride back. He had just driven a good race and had I been there I would have stood and clapped as he soared by on Fernando’s car.

    1. They were each given a reprimand, however, Webber has already gotten 2 this season making this his third. Three reprimands = 10-place grid penalty.

      The explanation can be easily found in the article if people actually bothered to read and understand it.

  64. I am a huge fan of Webber and am very disappointed to see him get the 10 place penalty for his 3rd infringment. As a big critic of the nanny state mentality I think Webber was not only getting a lift back with his good mate Alonso, but that he was giving the big two fingers up at the establishment. I remember watching that Mansell / Senna interaction as a kid and miss it in this day and age.

    That said, did anyone see the GP2 cool down lap from Race 2 in Singapore. Leimer t-boned Rossi hard. Now imagine if someone had been sitting on that sidepod. I shudder to think of the carnage that would have caused.


    So, rules might be rules, but they exist for a reason…

  65. There is another topic on here about the booing of Vettel.
    Several posters there noted that – while booing is wrong – Vettel has not been able to endear himself to fans.
    He should take a lesson from Alonso on how to be human, and perhaps that would change.
    But sadly, it seems that the corporate cyborg is what the powers-that-be favor.

  66. wow… over 100 ks with the sitting there.
    And 40 ks going around a 90o bend doesnt seem like much, but on a road car that would be enough for my gf to scream. imagine having to hold on to the car.

  67. A prime example of people unfairly complaining about stewards’ rulings once again before knowing the facts. Pathetic.

    They are there to make the sport safer for everybody and if you think that NOT punishing for clear breach of safety regulations is the way to do that you should probably get your head examined.

  68. didn’t hakkinen get a similiar lift from coulthard after that last-lap engine blow up at cantalunya 2001? any idea if they were reprimanded?

    1. They were not because Coulthard didn’t park on the racing line & Mika asked for & was given permission from the marshals to walk back towards the circuit.

      The reprimands given yesterday were not for the actual lift, It was because the way they went about it was dangerous.
      Fernando stopped on the racing line & Mark didn’t bother asking for permission to run back onto the circuit.

      If Fernando had pulled off the circuit & parked on the run-off area he would not have got the reprimand & had Mark asked for & been given permission to re-enter the circuit he also would not have been given a reprimand.

  69. Agree with a reprimand for Webber, annoyed it is his third. Probably highlights the ‘me’ attitude of 99% of F1 drivers, I am sure others knew Webber was there, and looking for a ride, and just kept going…. How else did Alonso know he was there and pull over??!!

  70. I like Mark, but that was dangerous. Even if he could judge that Hamilton and Rosberg were far enough away for him to run to Alonso’s car, you never know if they could avoid Alonso’s parked Ferrari in the middle of the track. Remember, after the race, drivers are frequently turning their head and looking to the crowd and waving at their fans, and may not have 100% full attention to the track in front of them. That makes it dangerous.

  71. Sorry yes safety should be first, but I think this is a case of safety should not be viewed through the eyes of amateurs like us.

    The eyes and reflexes of a formula one driver are way better trained. What might be seen as a close call to us, would feel like a easy avoid obstacle for most drivers. If no driver complained then I would not see a problem here. otherwise you just voted for streetracing to be unsafe. They where going slow, all of them. And most could probably avoid it even at race speed.

    Yes there are rules but i think penalties like these should be done for things that affect the outcome of the race. BEFORE the finish flag drops. So a fine should be more in its place then a grid penalty.

  72. Nice to see the lift on TV, but completely deserved on both counts. Going against the instructions of the marshals is a big no no. Alonso stopping dangerously on track is silly as well, especially after the crash during the warm down lap in GP2.

  73. Both Alonso and Webber can consider themselves lucky because they have experienced Merc drivers coming behind them. If there are less experience drivers, then I shudder to think what would happen

  74. reprimand for what was arguably the best spectacle from the last 2-3 races? Vettel wins races, diresta not making it out of Q1, kimi’s aversion to interviews…alonso and webber giving each other lifts, its what they do ok? but its not ok, their on the parade lap for goodness sakes, why werent the mercedes drivers reprimanded for going too fast on the parade lap? why do they have to rid the little spec of entertainment for the fans after the singabore of a gp. topsy turvy stuff, FIA are getting bored too, need to reprimand. Drivers not getting along sells stories and gathers interests from non F1 fans…let the circus carry on

    1. why werent the mercedes drivers reprimanded for going too fast on the parade lap?

      Because there is no regulation saying drivers have to slow down on the parade lap, They can actually drive as quickly or as slowly as they want.

      Also like many others you confusing what the reprimand was for, The reprimand was not for the lift, It was because of the way Alonso stopped on track, Suddenly braking/stopping on the racing line forcing others to take avoiding action & because Webber as it turns out disobeyed the marshals instructions & ran onto the circuit.

      Now that its been reported that Webber actually disobeyed the instructions of the marshals I feel even more convinced the reprimand was correct. The marshals are there for the safety of everyone involved & its completely unacceptable for anyone to ignore or disobey there instructions.

      I’ve seen drivers sent home from club race meetings for disobeying the instructions of the marshals so in that sense Mark got off very lightly.

  75. Recommend everyone reads this article which clearly explains the entire situation & why the reprimand Mark got was 100% correct.


  76. Let’s be honest.
    If safety is the No. 1 concern for Formula One racing, there would be no Formula One racing.
    Its appeal exists because it has dangers.
    To be intellectually consistent, those who care only about Formula One’s safety should be campaigning to end its existence.

  77. Something’s rotten in the realm of F1!

    Watch this (1’38”):

Comments are closed.