Bianchi gets three-place grid penalty

2013 Korean Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Jules Bianchi has been handed a three-place grid penalty for impeding Paul di Resta during qualifying for the Korean Grand Prix.

However as Bianchi qualified 21st he will only be moved back one place on the grid, promoting team mate Max Chilton.

The stewards ruled Bianchi did not heed the advice of his team to allow Di Resta to overtake him during Q1: “The driver of car 22 (on an out lap) was given a radio warning of the approach of car 14 (on a fast lap) but decided to stay on line to start his own flying lap.”

“The stewards consider that car 22 could have safely allowed car 14 to pass before starting his flying lap.”

Bianchi was also given a reprimand, which is the second he has received so far this year.

Di Resta was still able to reach Q2 despite being held up by Bianchi.

2013 Korean Grand Prix

    Browse all 2013 South Korean Grand Prix articles

    Image © Marussia

    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.

    24 comments on “Bianchi gets three-place grid penalty”

    1. Harsh. I don’t think drivers should have to compromise their flying lap, even for a faster car. Bianchi was entitled to be on the racing line to start his fast lap. Fortunately, given his grid position, it won’t actually be much of a penalty.

      1. “The stewards consider that car 22 could have safely allowed car 14 to pass before starting his flying lap.”

        I believe that means he was still on out lap. It’s fair decision from stewards IMO. @tdog

        1. I believe that means he was still on out lap

          Yes, Bianchi was on his outlap (just). I didn’t say otherwise. But as Bianchi was entering the start/finish straight, getting off the racing line through turns 17 and 18 would compromise his speed entering that straight and, therefore, his flying lap.

          I appreciate that he was warned on the radio that di Resta was approaching but ultimately the driver is in the best position to judge whether he can move for a car behind without compromising his own lap.

          I saw the footage from di Resta’s car live during qualy and I don’t see where Bianchi could have gone without affecting his own qualy effort.

          I still think it is a harsh decision, and am dubious (as @colossal-squid has said) that a driver in a front ranking team would have been penalised for the same thing.

        2. @adityafakhri I agree with the ruling, but Bianchi by allowing Di Resta threw would indeed get impaired by Di Resta on his in-lap. I understand why Bianchi didn’t let him threw he was warming his tyres on the last sector. To solve the problem they shouldn’t consider blocking on the last sector. One positive is that Bianchi won’t suffer much because he is already on the last row and Chilton beats his team-mate.

      2. Nick Jarvis (@)
        5th October 2013, 14:36

        This exactly.
        Someone needs to sit Di Resta down and carefully tell him he’s not the best driver the world has ever seen. He thinks another driver should sacrifice his ultimate flying lap, just so he can set one instead.
        Bianchi is entirely entitled to set a lap, and if Di Resta is close behind him, it’s Di Resta’s fault for not giving himself enough of a gap at the start of the lap.

        1. @nickj95gb

          it’s Di Resta’s fault for not giving himself enough of a gap

          The stewards said Bianchi – who was not on a flying lap at the time – should have been able to give Di Resta room. I see no reason not to believe their judgement that Bianchi was in the wrong regardless of how one feels about Di Resta.

      3. I haven’t found out yet in which corner the incident happened, if it was in the last two corners where one needs to accelerate well in order to start the lap, I would agree that Bianchi shouldn’t be penalized, but if he went unreasonably slow before those corners despite knowing someone was coming or if it was before that section the penalty could be justified. One needs to see the footage of what happened.

      4. I guess given that he loses only 1 spot to his teammate, and Bianchi apparently ignored the instructions of his engineer to give more room there when he was still on his warmup lap, its hard to say that is a harsh penalty @tdog

    2. “I have got nothing to lose” – Jules Bianchi

    3. So, was Bianchi not on a timed lap when Di Resta arrived as seen on the feed? Or is that referring to the lap before? If it’s the latter, then this is ridiculous. If it’s the previous, then yes, it makes perfect sense, but I was under the impression it was the latter.

    4. “A three spot grid penalty”
      Bianchi qualified 21st in a 22 car field, what’s the point of issuing a three spot grid penalty when one would have surficed? I bet Bianchi must be absolutely devastated at being demoted by one spot on this grid. F1 has become a laughing stock for motorsport particularly after the penalty issued to Webber after the last round.

      1. Why? To be more consistent with the penalties applied based on a common scenario. The fact that Bianchi qualified 21st should be irrelevant. AFAIK a 3 place penalty is the norm for any driver who impedes a rival.

      2. It’s the reprimand that got me. In the past few races the stewards have become obsessed with those…

    5. I don’t agree with this call… Over reaction imho

    6. Damn, the penalties keep getting sillier. Now it’s a crime to build a car too slow…

    7. If he gets to a third reprimand this year what are they going to do? What is the point of a ten grid penalty when u start last or second last.

      1. It doesn’t matter. You can’t have different penalties for different drivers based on how fast his car is.

        If he gets a third reprimand this year he’ll get a ten place grid penalty, same as everybody else.

        Some people on here seem to be suggesting having a different penalty because of the cars pace. It’s madness!

    8. It is a bit too harsh . Backmarkers are often brushed aside so much with the blue flags . It’s like they no longer have an identity any more having to always make way for the kings . Marussia will rise with ferrari engines next year to the midfield .

      1. Nick Jarvis (@)
        5th October 2013, 14:51

        Will they?
        Caterham didn’t.. annoyingly. We’ll never be up there

    9. Apparently “consistency” in the stewards rulings has thrown common sense out the window. I find it telling that the stewards ruling, as quoted in this article, penalizes Bianchi for ignoring a radio call, notfor impeding di Resta. Did they even look at the telemetry? Di Resta’s time was more than a quarter of a second behind Sutil, so I’m obliged to conclude that there was no measurable “interference.”

      Also, the ruling states that Bianchi was starting his own flying lap (maybe 1 or 2 turns before the line.) This implies that he was going as fast as he could to get a “flying start.” It’s pure semantics to say he was not “on” his flying lap and therefore under an obligation to “safely slow down.”

      All in all, not a tremendously smart ruling.

    10. The TV commentary said Bianchi was on his hot lap so I thought the penalty was unfair.
      If it is the case that he was on his out/slow lap then the penalty is justified, especially as Bianchi used a significant amount of the track.

    11. It appeared to me that by the time di Resta caught up to Bianchi, Bianchi would have had to compromise the start of his own flying lap just to allow di Resta to complete his. To me it was just an unfortunate ‘wrong place, wrong time’ occurrence. I wonder if it was a Ferrari or Red Bull ahead of di Resta would a similar penalty be given?

    12. I see no point in giving both a reprimand and the 3 places back on grid. You should get retrocessions when you reach 3 reprimands, so what’s the point of applying them together casually

    13. Why a penalty? Di resta was through to Q2 either way? In the past there have been similar incidents like this where the stewards decided: ‘Ok, he advanced to Q2 or Q3, so no penalty needed, no real harm done’

    Comments are closed.