Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Monte-Carlo, 2015

Raikkonen fumes over Ricciardo pass

2015 Monaco Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Monte-Carlo, 2015Kimi Raikkonen said he did not understand why Daniel Ricciardo’s pass on him for fifth place at Monaco was allowed to stand.

The stewards investigated Ricciardo’s lap 72 pass on the Ferrari driver, which saw the pair make contact, but did not take any action.

“We gained one place but we lost it for a stupid reason,” was Raikkonen’s view on the incident with Ricciardo, who he had passed via the pits earlier in the race.

“I was following my normal line when Ricciardo hit my rear tyre and pushed me wide, regaining the position. It’s not very clear what you are allowed to do, it’s really odd but there’s nothing we can do.”

The stewards reviewed video of the incident and ruled they “do not believe that either driver [was] wholly or predominantly to blame for the incident”.

“I had a little incident with Kimi and it’s hard to get a clean move without a little contact in Monaco,” said Ricciardo. “I appreciate the stewards not taking any further action and I think the crowd and the fans enjoyed it.”

2015 Monaco Grand Prix

Browse all 2015 Monaco 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.

47 comments on “Raikkonen fumes over Ricciardo pass”

  1. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
    25th May 2015, 0:06

    Inconsistency, from the F1 stewards? Surely not.

    1. @weeniebeenie I thought they got the calls on both the Mirabeau incidents correct.

      In both cases there was room for both driers to go side-by-side through the corner. Alonso made a mistake and put Hulkenberg in the barrier. They gave the the most lenient penalty available to them, which I think is fair.

      In Raikkonen’s case, he tried to close the door on Ricciardo once the Red Bull was already alongside, but after contact both drivers were able to continue. No harm, no foul, let them race it out.

      1. But he was not far enough alongside since he tapped the rear of his car to force him wide. I

        1. @scuderia_fan85

          he tapped the rear of his car to force him wide

          The way I saw it Raikkonen instigated the contact but I don’t have the video to hand right now.

          1. He came from a hell of a long way back. Ric’s front left was about half a tyres length past Raikkonen’s right rear when they touched.

          2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZBRQ-8JJM

            It looks like Ricciardo had plenty of space left by Raikkonen and he wasn’t closing the door on Daniel – the front of Ferrari moves towards apex because of the contact (seems to me when watching video in slow motion)

          3. Raikkonen has previous at instigating contact around Monaco (with Perez 2013).

          4. You cannot possibly let people get away with knocking other people’s rear wheels out, at no point was RIC close to going around the outside, what RIC did was push Kimi out of the way, Kimi cannot be responsible for someone braking late trying to make a pass that will never stick.

          5. *outside, with respect to the next turn. & he would have never made that kind of turn in. RIC got lucky, he pushed Kimi out of position, RIC was never in position for a pass.

        2. I think Kimi is moaning a bit too much these days about other people, and he did leave the door open here somewhat. So I’m inclined to turn a deaf ear. But F1 can’t really let people use the “chrome horn” to pass as a practice.

      2. @keithcollantine I have different view on this one:
        inconsistency was and will always be there. funnily, it shown at the same race, same kind of incident, same corner… with different outcome. I also always thought 5 sec penalty is kinda meaningless. the offender will be slightly affected -if not at all-, and the victim can lost a place, or find himself in the wall and out of the race.
        I believe if that were two drivers fighting for the first position, stewards would rule differently. that shouldn’t be the case in my view. it’s like law, whoever violates it should be punished the same. title contenders or backmarkers, highborn or fishermen… same stewarding standards should applied on all circumstances.

      3. He didn’t close the door, he just steered into the corner, taking a normal line. Ric was way to far to even think about overtaking him.

  2. I agree with Kimi. This was not really on. Even ric said afterwards if Kimi had gone into the Armco he probably would have got penalised…. But its the old debate, the penalty for such driving should be irrespective of the outcome.

    I’d probably nudge someone like this in a computer game, but Ric should have at least handed the place back IMHO.

    1. Should Bianchi have given the place back to Koboyashi in 2014 after passing him at Rascasse? In that instance, he made contact not once, not twice, but three times ion his way through. Passing at Monaco is hard enough, without the stewards automatically penalising any contact. Taiko new shouldn’t have left the gap, Riciiardo got through without either of them going into the barriers or suffering significant damage. Well done to the stewards for rewarding tough but fair racing.

      1. *Raikonnen. Thank you auto correct.

      2. @tdog you make a good point and on reflection I think I agree.

      3. That Bianchi overtake should have been penalised.

      4. @tdog Only the first contact was of Bainchi’s making. The next two were caused by Kobayashi turning into Bianchi.

  3. I fully understand why Iceman got heat, but I don’t think Riccard should be penalised. It was not clean but I think it’s just racing contact rather than making him crash into barrier as Alonso did. It was similar but not same.

  4. It’s not like they were scraping paint going side by side. Daniel nudged Kimi’s wheel and nearly spun him into the barriers or given him a puncture. He said himself had he ended Kimi’s race the outcome would’ve been different so why is the move allowed sometimes but not others?

    1. He didn’t nudge kimis wheel! Please watch the youtube video, and you will clearly see that Ric only steers right, and Kimi turns into ric. It was a cheeky (and awesome) move, and thank god it wasn’t penalised. The Stewarding this weekend was the best in years imo.

      1. pastaman (@)
        26th May 2015, 4:01

        You mean Kimi turns into the corner…

      2. Kimi turns because there is a corner. Check the video.

  5. This was like MotoGP Rossi vs Stoner, Rossi vs Marquez, Lorenzo vs Marques stuff, as long as nobody died, its a good show.
    Perhaps they should move to boxing sport or parents are now allowed to race.

  6. I don’t understand how the stewards always assess things completely backwards. If a driver makes a small mistake attempting a maneuver, I can see the stewards letting it slide. They didn’t do that. If a driver deliberately sticks his nose in knowing there isn’t room, punting the other car to the side, and they let it slide. Wildly inconsistent. But I guess none of us are really surprised by that.

  7. That was just a stupid move from Ricciardo. Hitting the car in front has nothing to do with an overtake.
    Ricciardo was too far behind to have a realistic chance to get ahead of Räikkönen.

    Still I don’t think he should’ve gotten a penalty for that. It was a racing incident.

    1. pastaman (@)
      26th May 2015, 4:02

      You make the case that he should have been penalized, then you say he shouldn’t be penalized. That makes no sense

  8. Reality is, compare the Alonso vs Hulk at the start of the race, Alonso caused an accident which took a driver out the race. Ricciardo’s tap didnt take Kimi out of the race and didnt cause him to lose more than 1 place. If it was the reverse I would not be happy but I would accept the fact that its monaco, this happens.

  9. Kimi is right. Only reason Ricciardo didn’t get penalized was that Kimi didn’t go into the wall. It was not fair racing – Ricciardo came from way too far back to be able to make a pass stick without contact – ergo he is at fault and should be penalized. The rules of overtaking shouldn’t be different in Monaco, just because it is almost impossible.

    1. If they’re going to continue to race these cars in Monaco then they should make allowances.

  10. Kimi is awful at closing the door, had this ended up in 1 of the drivers retiring, Kimi would have been to blame. Correct judgement from the stewards this time.

  11. Melchior (@)
    25th May 2015, 8:28

    I thought that Ricciardo’s move was a tad clumsy but i recall Hamilton doing similar on a couple of occasions to Mark Webber and not being penalized.

  12. As a Kimi fan, I think this was the correct decision by the stewards. Yes, Ricciardo’s move was not properly on, but once he was alongside, he just could not vanish? Kimi kept closing the door, and forcing the contact. I think Daniel should either have abandoned his move earlier (once it was clear that he was not going to get clearly by) or delay his braking a bit further. Now he was in that weird zone, where the car in front is not sure if the guy behind is going to overtake or not.

  13. Kimi is to Blame here. RIC didn’t nudge for the window but it was there in his plate. I’m fan of Kimi but also fan of RIC overtakes which was there and He did the best, fortunately for him with no Damage to either Car’s.

  14. Dave (@daveforbergmail-com)
    25th May 2015, 13:27

    I think the stewards got it wrong all weekend. Alonso vs Hulkenberg – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFbRH122FVY, Fernando was on the inside and Hulk didn’t give enough room — racing incident. Verstappen vs Grosjean was a miscalculation — racing incident. Ricciardo vs Raikkonen was advantage by contact.

  15. I just can’t believe the number of people who think it was fair play. Their reasoning that they were side by side is laughable unless they are blind. What was Raikkonen supposed to do to avoid it? It was the kind of clumsiness we witnessed last year from Magnussen.

    1. Totally agree, some of the opinions on this thread are a bit odd. I can only assume they are driven by posters likes/dislikes of individual drivers. I think that the unrelenting denigration or elevation of individual drivers by commenters diminishes the value of their opinions to me.

      As you say, what was Kimi supposed to do, not turn in to the apex? He is a good, experienced driver but he isn’t telepathic. Imho, tell from Ricciardo’s interviews that he knows he was guilty.

      Alonso was also unfairly penalised, for locking slightly on the entry to the corner. If he hadn’t locked up there was no chance Hulk could have passed him (as the outside line on that corner ends in the wall), therefore I don’t believe it was deliberate. If you are on the outside it is always a risk, so i think that was a ‘racing incident’, though not as obvious a mistake as the Kimi fiasco.

      Who was the race steward again, Mr Magoo?

      1. Oh dear… should be

        Imho, you can tell from Ricciardo’s interview that heknows he was guilty

  16. Michael Brown
    25th May 2015, 15:04

    It’s not surprising that the stewards award penalties for the result of incidents. Grosjean was banned because he took out “championship contenders.”

  17. If you saw the video, I really can’t understand how some people still say that RIC was on the inside of Kimi?! He didn’t touch the middle of the sidepod or anything like that, it was a wheel to wheel touch! Kimi was lucky he didn’t lose the rear completely! RIC was miles away, and the only way he could made the move was like that! But you can’t do anything when the guy behind touch your wheel! So in my view, because of that it should be penalized!

  18. ” I appreciate the stewards not taking any further action and I think the crowd and the fans enjoyed it.”
    So if you put a good enough show it should be overlooked? I don’t want a show like that. He makes these irritating cheeky comments sometimes. Did similar comments on Vettel before the race also.
    If that was gonna be legal, Raikkonen would have tried something like that while he was running behind Ricciardo. Maybe next year he should!

  19. I still blame RIC, Kimi had to turn into the corner, RIC knew this. Only way RIC would have gotten through without contact would have been if Kimi had gone very wide.

  20. Why is Raikkonen called the “Ice Man” ?

    1. Because long time ago he did not TALK too much like these days.

  21. It seems like many of you don’t understand how racing works. When you’re racing there is what is called the racing line. This line is the preferred line and generally the car in front takes this line since it is the “best” in terms of overall placement of the vehicle and lap time. When you take the racing line, generally, you move from the outside of the track, towards the inside or apex.

    When RAI does this, many of you believe that he was closing the door. You are wrong. He was simply following the preferred racing line. This was exacerbated by what many of you believe is RAI “closing the door” on RIC when he was really taking the line that he had been taking the entire race and found that RIC had stuck his car in at the last second, like he thought there was going to be enough room to fit a car in there.

    Another factor that many of you seem to overlook is that RIC did stick his car in where it should not have been. Just because you dart to the inside at the last second and brake a little later, getting your front wheel halfway up the rear of someone else does not mean that you were in the door to pass. Let’s imagine if RIC decided to follow through being on the inside throughout that turn and had not touched RAI and acted as though the inside wall wasn’t there. His car would have hit the wall at the apex. Physically his car would not have fit there no matter what he did, at least not without removing many pieces of it.

    Think about it this way, if I have pushbars on my car, the kind the police use to pit a car, and we are both in the same lane going around a turn and I decide to give you a push out into oncoming traffic because I want to get around you, should I? Certainly it is within my ability to do so, and I can do so without damaging my vehicle, but generally I would think that you, as the driver in front of me being pushed into the wrong lane, would disagree with my actions. I believe many of you would rather I wait to pass you until an actual, legal opportunity to pass comes along than to give you a push in the wrong direction.

    I think here it is clear that the race stewards got this call wrong and that RIC should have had to give the position back at the very least.

    Having done a fair bit of racing myself, I would have tried around the outside to try and get the inside line for the next corner. I think this would have been well within RIC ability given his talent and the car he is driving seeing as the RedBull is rather good in the corners.

    Contrasting with this case, is the one involving ALO and HUL in which one car was pushed into the barrier. In this case you can easily see that ALO was more than half a tire/wheel alongside HUL. I would estimate that he was about 2/3rds of a car-length abreast of HUL. In this case you can see ALO lock up a bit into the turn, but not so much that he lost steering input and went straight on into HUL. HUL had more time than RAI to see that there was another car to his inside and adjust his line accordingly. Perhaps he was distracted by something else, or too focused on what was going on in front of him. This one is, I think, harder to tell who is at fault, but I think in this case it is HUL because he certainly had enough time and space to adjust his line and leave a car-width of room, as is required by the sporting regulations, for ALO to make it around the turn. If he had, he probably would have kept the spot since the next turn he would have had the inside line over ALO.

    I don’t know that I would have given HUL a penalty since he had already lost track position, but I believe he is more at fault than ALO. In the end it didn’t matter for ALO since he retired from a failed gearbox. Whoever said that HUL retired must not have watched the whole race since MAL, ALO and VER were the only retirements.

    I don’t recall who the expert that weekend was. It might have been Tom Kristensen. I seem to remember his name being mentioned during the broadcast. If that’s the case maybe he condones the behavior shown by RIC. I certainly understand his frustration having to compete with younger drivers in his work with Audi. Perhaps that’s what goes on in the dark of night at the 24 Hours of Le Mans?

  22. Kimi trying to close the door on Dan Ricciardo was almost like when Prost closed the door on Senna in Japan 1989, the only difference is that it was at a slower speed and this one didn’t end with both cars off the track.

    It was just a racing incident and its the nature of Monaco. Because the track is so tight there isn’t a lot of room to pass and quite often unless the guy in front of you makes a mistake the only way past is to force the issue.

    Remember back in 1988 when Prost’s McLaren followed Berger’s Ferrari for 54 laps? The McLaren was clearly faster than the Ferrari but Berger drove well enough to keep Prost behind him. On just about any other track that year the McLaren would have got past within a couple of laps at most, but at Monaco it took him 54 laps, by which time Senna was almost a minute in front. Though we know that Prost went on to win after Senna hit the barrier in what was his only mistake in a weekend he dominated.

Comments are closed.