Bernie Ecclestone, Baku City Circuit, 2017

Ecclestone: “I shouldn’t go back”

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone says he shouldn’t try to return to running Formula One.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

@Bleu was at Magny-Cours in 1997 for the race featured on F1 Fanatic yesterday:

I was at the race, hoping for good results for Finns. It didn’t happen.

Hakkinen retired on the sight. Once at home, eagerly waiting how the situation was handled by Finnish commentators – result was that it happened during the adverts.

I was also able to see Mika Salo walking back to the pits – his car stopped near the 180-degree left-hander.
@Bleu

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Rhys and Mike-E!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

June on F1 Fanatic

A selection of F1 Fanatic’s top reads from last month which you might have missed:

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 121 comments on “Ecclestone: “I shouldn’t go back””

    1. Yes Bernie, you’re right this time

      1. Yeah, but this is Bernie……

        ‘I shouldn’t go back’ means ‘I’ll be back on tuesday’

        1. Then someone please “Chase” him away ! (boom tish)

    2. Can someone explain to me how Vettel used his car as a “weapon”?

      1. He used his car to hit another car…..
        It’s a strong interpretation of the events but it could easily be classed as us8ng his car as a weapon

      2. @ibrahim Well, it’s a car that weighs several hundreds kilos with a speed of about 60kph. If you still don’t see how being hit with one might have the effect of a weapon maybe you should try getting hit yourself. Might put things into perspective.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          30th June 2017, 0:51

          @redi ha-ha-ha – I have a feeling that hit screwed Lewis’ headrest…

          1. Sundar Srinivas Harish
            30th June 2017, 1:57

            As opposed to the team not fastening it properly after the red flag?

          2. @freelittlebirds I really hope you’re being sarcastic. If you are calling me a blind Hamilton fan, maybe you should take a look in the mirror. And yes, not even trying to argue and leaving a sarcastic comment does mean you are what you hate.

            1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
              1st July 2017, 16:10

              @redi well, how common is it for a headrest to “fail” to snap in properly?

              These things snap in perfectly but apparently that wasn’t the case after the hit and you could see 2 Mercedes personnel having trouble putting on the new one. I assume they require “perfect alignment” to snap in.

              I’m not saying it’s 100% sure but it’s a very probable cause given the fact that Lewis’ car was hit twice and his head hit the headrest after the collision sideways perhaps “misaligning” the fastener.

              Or the Mercedes expert staff simply botched it in the flurry of activity to get the car out in front of the pack in a 15+ minute pit stop…

              Take your pick as to what is more probable and more logical.

        2. @redi
          Maybe take a second physics lsesson. The speed between the cars was a single digit kmph at max and Vettels “hit” didnt nearly have the full weight of the car behind it as the front wheels mearly glanced. That hit wouldnt cause any serious dmg even if strucken directly against a unprotected human body and as far as the cars go it wasnt any more voilent than being struck by other normaly occuring weapons like the kerbs on the track as an example.

          1. @rethla How about if Vettel had misjudged his ram slightly, rode up the front wheel of Hamilton and over the cockpit? A bit like Kimi and Alonso at Austria last year? No real speed needed for that to happen, just tun in a bit earlier and Hamilton could have had some serious injuries.

            1. *turn not tun

            2. Well thats not a “slight misjudgement” and to force your car up onto another like in that crash would require an very deliberate action to do so. (or a highspeed crash)

              Vettel could have misjudged his position and speed slightly and maybe caused some light wing damage and if really unlucky a puncture.

          2. @rethla Still a very weak weapon.
            Plus the whole question was HOW was the car used as a weapon. Simply is was an object which had high Kinetic Energy that was used to hit another object.
            Talking about the crash and the 2nd physics lesson. Hamilton wasn’t moving horizontally (he was moving in a straight line) so his horizontal velocity was 0kph. Vettel on the other had a horizontal velocity of at least 3.6 kph I suspect. There was a lot of energy in the contact (Vettel’s car jumped slightly). I was quite surprised to see both their suspensions survive the contact honestly. I don’t know how stupid or how much of a Vettel fan you have to be to say that being run over with a car doing 60kph wouldn’t be dangerous for a human being. If you are a man of your word you should go and try it. Well you kinda shouldn’t, but maybe it would help you see that CARS CAN BE USED AS WEAPONS. Just because your favorite driver did something bad, doesn’t mean it suddenly becomes okay from now on. Grow up

            1. @redi
              I have no particular love for Vettel but ofc you say that when you have nothing else to say. Come back with your nonsense when Vettel has ran over Hamilton in 60kmph. We all know cars can be used as weapons as of late thank you very much for that information but that is not the case here.

            2. Using his car to express his anger was using it as a weapon. And honestly, what are we doing here commenting or ping pong? There was clearly damage that could be done and the maneuver was intentional. I thought the only reason one would say otherwise was because that person was a Vettel fan.

      3. RossoToro (@)
        30th June 2017, 0:53

        Just Buxton being his usual drama boy again.

        1. Buxton’s one of the only journos/analysts and God forbid, even drivers talking sense.

          I can’t believe so many have been so blasé about it. You absolutely cannot barge in to someone deliberately, whether it’s behind the safety car, or at race pace.

          Aside from driving the wrong way around the circuit, that’s the worst sin you can commit as a driver.

          I was thoroughly disappointed to see both Jenson and Stoffel condone it. I question how much Vandoorne would have supported such a move against him by one of the other backmarkers during the race…

      4. I think the main point is he used his car to be more intimidating and as a way of creating physical contact. That fits into definition of a weapon. if I bashed someone over the head with a banana it wouldn’t do much if any damage but I would still have used it as a weapon, especially if it was my intention to cause impact with it.

        1. That’s why all of the pillow fights I was ever involved in always resulted in charges being laid.

          But to respond directly to your point, everyone knows there’s a perfectly effective way to defend yourself against someone who attacks you with a banana.

          1. You clearly have never raced competitively. Such an armchair statement.

            Even in competitive karting, someone going in to you (accidentally!) wasn’t at all fun. Someone crashing in to you deliberately is 100% unacceptable at all times.

            1. @ecwdanselby I havnt raced professionally but theres alot of intentional bumping when i go gocarting now and then. Who knew we where swinging weapons at each other…

              Touching wheels with each other in cars that can handle it perfectly well aint using weapons at each other and calling it that is why the Monty python sketch linked in here ridiculing statements like that hits home so well.

      5. According to the Oxford English Dictionary website, a weapon is “A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.” I can’t see how there weren’t at least scuff marks on the side of Hamilton’s car, so the only question that remains is was the second crash deliberate or not. If Vettel’s action was deliberate then, as far as I can tell, one is correct in calling his car “a weapon”. If Vettel’s action was accidental (and an apology of some sort would help in believing this) then I don’t think “weapon” is really the correct word to use, but I don’t know what the correct adjective is when there is damage caused by being clumsy.

      6. @ibrahim This came up in the comments on the poll earlier this week when I used the same word in the same way. A weapon is an implement used to strike someone so, like it or not, it’s a fair description:

        http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/06/26/was-vettels-dangerous-driving-penalty-correct/#comment-3520014

        1. Keith, I think Will Buxton read your article

          And that is a case of, I will copy my homework from this guy and change it a bit to not look obvious ;)

        2. And that comment that you posted clearly comes from an extremely intelligent individual, I wonder who he is.

          1. You said it could be classed as a weapon if he intended to hit Hamilton or tried to take him out the race @johnmilk . Firstly Vettel did intend to hit him. Secondly the degree of damage done doesn’t change the definition of a weapon. If an object ( literally any object ) is used with the intention of making physical contact then it’s been used as a weapon.

            1. @keithcollantine
              http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/10930902/sebastian-vettels-collision-with-lewis-hamilton-in-azerbaijan-gp-intolerable-says-max-mosley

              Rachell Brooks interview with Vettel is particularly appalling if not alarming!

              Vettel states, ham brake checked him so what did you expect?, to a question regarding his second collision with him. He either ignores it ever happened, or he says in a way his actions were justified based on his assumption…

              This guy is unbelievable! I hope he gets a ban or DSQed from results. He doesnt seem to understand his behavior and actions actually caused all the drama… I hope this time around it doesnt cut it with a sorry it won happen again after countless times it happened already…

            2. “Vettel didn’t intend to hit him” – erm, what race was you watching?! You have to be kidding me?

              Have you ever seen Schumacher barge in to Villeneuve in 1997? What were your thoughts on that, out of interest?

            3. Dear Tom.
              Not the use of an object with the intention of physical contact defines it as using it as a weapon.
              Just remind yourself of all those lovely couples using toys to spice up their physical relationship ;)

              Using an object as a weapon means using it with the ‘intention of physical harm’.

        3. @keithcollantine If Vettel actually used a weapon on Hamilton then Hamilton should be filing charges and not FIA investigating Vettel for a raceban.

          1. Pretty rich of Moseley to suggest a higher penalty than MS received for whacking JV. SV has already received more punishment than MS got by having the stop and go and the 3 points that could bite him yet.

            MS committed a much much bigger crime and barely got a slap on the wrist. Exclusion from the Championship which he had already taken himself out of, and then getting to keep his poles and wins and points for the record books anyway, was no penalty of any consequence whatsoever to MS. And this after Mosley had threatened ahead of the race that if there was any interference by anyone against the two title contenders at Jerez there would be a 3 race ban at the start of 98 for them. MS did exactly that but no…his moved was judged ‘instinctual.’ Wasn’t that the whole problem with MS? Moves like that just came instinctually to him.

            1. Mosley: Vettel actions intolerable (Sky)
              “My recommendation would have been to take Vettel out of the race and bring him to a dungeon where uniformed ladies will teach him a lesson”

              @robbie

            2. @f1-liners Lol too funny! Thanks for that.

          2. @Gabby buy and read a dictionary. (or use google) it will help greatly with the definition of words. Your lack of comprehension does not change reality. It just makes you look ignorant. Hamilton would have a case if he took it court but I don’t think he is that bothered.

            1. @Tiomkin Yeh he would have but it wouldnt lead to anything.

        4. Wow, completely overboard on this weapon stuff.
          So, going forward, anytime there is contact between cars that could be deemed as avoidable, this will be viewed as an attack with a weapon?
          Trying to apply real world rules to racing does not work. There was no “weapon” .
          I have been forced to listen to him since he took over pit lane duties for US broadcasts. Buxton is the biggest Hamilton fanboy there is.

          1. So, going forward, anytime there is contact between cars that could be deemed as avoidable, this will be viewed as an attack with a weapon?

            No, because you’re confusing ‘avoidable’ with ‘intentional’ here. The former is something we see commonly; the latter, which is what Vettel did on Sunday, is thankfully much rarer.

            1. @keithcollantine
              Fair enough, but no, I am not confusing anything of the sort.
              There was no weapon involved. “Intentionally” bumping tires does not mean an F1 car is a weapon.
              If it were a weapon, there would be attempted murder charges from previous race incidents. Prost/Senna, Schumacher/Villeneuve …. should I continue?
              This is a race track, not a public road. You trying to turn the car into a weapon is wrong.

    3. So Vandoorne recommends more of same?
      I believe we need the right emotions in sport. We don’t need more violence on the race track, plenty of that elsewhere on TV
      F1 should be a family sport, no minimum age. We don’t want to sow the wrong ideas in young kids.

      1. Thing is, F1 is about driving cars as fast as possible, to the physical limits. It is inherently irresponsible and by its nature is about a very thing, an urge to do something when we don’t think about responsibility and possible consequences. A good number of car-races people take part in are still illegal, and for a good reason. We may have found a way to confine it to certain places and cars and make a legal and organized thing out of it, but it’ll never be something to look for role models. Every racer will at some point prefer his adrenalin over his safety a bit too much for that.
        Trying to turn F1-drivers into responsible role-models is a bit like taking a long-standing TV-series about the mafia and turning it into the Partridge Family. Losing mischief from F1 does not make it better.

        1. Then the FIA should do away with all these investigations and fines and allow drivers to ram each other.

          1. What’s a mafia-series without police? Of course it needs to be partially corrupt, but it needs to be there.

    4. I wonder what Dan Ticktum thinks about Vettel’s actions?

    5. I think Buxton is being a bit too dismissive towards Maldonado’s ‘swipes’. In both incidents he was only given a grid drop even though it was possible the second incident resulted in Perez’s qualifying crash. More importantly is that in both incidents, he was driving at a much faster speed than Vettel was behind the safety car yet he was allowed to continue to participate in both weekends. I find it baffling that at the time he wasn’t given harsher penalties which would have indeed set some sort of precedent for such actions of ‘road rage.’

      Or may a grid drop is the precedent?

      1. Brian (@flyinglapct)
        30th June 2017, 1:31

        I could see VET getting some sort of grid penalty. Depending on the size of the penalty, he could stockpile engine components to use for the rest of the season.

        1. You can’t do that anymore

          1. @racerdude7730 @flyinglapct
            Yes because Hamilton abused it so heavily last season it got banned….

            1. Thanks man. Didn’t realize it was no longer an option. He is on turbo #4, right? Looks like he’ll be facing grid penalties at some point regardless of what happens here.

    6. Brian (@flyinglapct)
      30th June 2017, 1:26

      The cardinal sin of racing? I thought hitting your teammate was the cardinal sin. Buxton’s article was a little too drawn out, but at least it wasn’t overly dramatic like the Darren Heath article yesterday.

    7. I gave the race a 10, but I didnt give it that score because Vettel ran into Hamilton. Yes, there was an element of drama, but thats not why I watch F1.

      Argy-bargy aside, it was an awesome race, lots of bold moves all through the field, some too bold. The stop start element of the race sort of made it better.

      Ultimately, it was nice to see neither Hamilton or Vettel winning!

    8. Bernie Ecclestone says he shouldn’t try to return to running Formula One.

      Is that a typo? – shouldn’t that be ruining ?

    9. Thought it was a great write up by Will Buxton. Don’t think anything will come of it now (Further Penalties for Vettel)

    10. I really dislike all this recent “heat of the moment, fighting for victory like warriors” narrative, regarding the Hamilton vs Vettel incident.

      This didn’t occur during wheel-to-wheel racing, at high speeds with close to no time to react, where each competitor just wants to get ahead.

      This occurred during the safety-car phase, where no racing or overtaking is allowed. It was a deliberate and vengeful, or at the very least incompetent manoeuvre by Vettel, who got off with a way too lenient penalty for his actions.

      1. It happened at the restart, where the drivers are trying to stay as close to the car in front as possible. Tensions are just as high and the margin for error just as low as during any wheel to wheel action under racing conditions.

        1. That’s academic, as it happened before the SC had left the track & the cars had passed the defined line which allowed racing to resume.

          Overtaking wasn’t yet allowed and Hamilton was intentionally slowing the pack, not just for his own means, but mainly to allow the much slower car to clear the field because of the massive differential in acceleration of the current cars…

        2. It did not happent at the restart at all Dwight. It happened several corners before the restart, as @andrewf1 mentions, behind the SC.

      2. Was very disappointed in Martin Brundle. I truly expected better from him. A real idiotic statement.

    11. Drivers should stop telling the fans what they want. Polls clearly dictate what that is. Mature behavior and appropriate punishments.

      1. Like Fan Boost in Formula E ;)

        1. ‘The polls’ almost unanimously hate Fan Boost, just like DRS.

    12. If I could, I would actually just say this to Vettel (quoting him): “Honestly, what are we doing here? Can you just clarify whether your move on Hamilton was intentional? Just say it and move on. If it was intentional, apologise. If not, say it you were stupid enough to not keep your hands on the wheel. This isn’t ping pong. Give your fans some ammunition to at least rebut some claims.”

    13. I will be happy when this story is moved on from because it’s really hard to watch how one sided the British Messi’s is. It’s pretty much a joke around the world at this point. (Not trying to make trouble just what I’m seeing)

      1. What is the side that’s not being told that the rest of the world knows all about?

        1. @racerdude7730 Well I am in Australia and the story seems to be pretty much the same here. Anyone from Samoa care to comment? Perhaps Chile? what about Taiwan. I too want to know what i am missing out on

          1. In the Netherlands it’s the same too. This is not about Hamilton, it’s about Vettel.

            It’s about Vettel ramming another car under the safety car in a road rage moment and deniing he did so. Vettel’s character is getting slammed for that.

          2. It’s the same here in Indonesia. But then again all the world use the very same source of information. Hence mainstream.

        2. In the US, I may be the only person that cares. This sort of thing happens every lap here. It’s called entertainment.

      2. Maybe it was less about Racing and more about Brexit? If that is the case, and it was nothing to do with racing, just Germany giving Blighty a clip round the ear, I don’t think Vettel did anything wrong at all.

        1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
          30th June 2017, 9:52

          TrollTrace

          1. Bad form… Sorry

      3. Haha @racerdude so you’ve been around the world in 5 days and interviewed a wide range of F1 fans and media to see how each country is reacting ? Or have you made a wild assumption on how you feel about it and just been proved wrong by people from Australia and the Netherlands. My close friend in France says it’s much the same there too. It’s interesting to see how other countries react. I’d make a prediction and say you’re in Italy or Germany ?

      4. No. It’s not.

    14. Robert McKay
      30th June 2017, 6:06

      RE: Bernie’s comments. Why do I read it in my head like this?

      “”I’ve been thrown out and someone else is going to do a better job and I’m quite sure if I went back I couldn’t do a good a job as they’re going to do. So I shouldn’t go back.” “BUT I WILL ANYWAY….”

    15. Ms Appropriate
      30th June 2017, 6:11

      It’s the bit that was cut from the feed where he called him ‘Big Nose’.

    16. I like Button’s tweet. Has he been reading the F1 Fanatic comments section all week?!

    17. I’m not your teammate and I don’t have to play your games. Job done.

    18. Lol, stil this drama. Like it or not, argy bargy made the race way more interesting.

    19. Aside from Keith’s excellent and balanced article on the matter, it’s been interesting to observe that most F1 journalists have taken a much harder and absolute line against Vettel than the majority of the drivers who have, on the whole, been more sanguine and balanced in their reflections. I can’t help but feel this is an issue where real experience of what it’s like to be in a racing car in a moment like that, both for Vettel and Hamilton (surely experienced by most drivers at some point in their careers) counts for a lot. Shouldn’t we be listening to them about the severity of Vettel’s punishment!? Vettel did the wrong thing, but I don’t like the ‘pile on’ media circus atmosphere (however fun it is!) that has followed the race.

      1. @travis-daye, I’d be wary of taking the advice of Jacques Villeneuve on board given that, in his recent races in the Brazilian Stock car series, he has intentionally rammed other drivers off the track at full racing speed – he seems to have become more carefree, or perhaps just careless, as he has aged.

        1. Haha, yes, hard to disagree with you about Villeneuve! I guess i’m thinking more about Brundle, Button, Massa etc. There’s no-one saying that Vettel did nothing wrong, the question is how we arrive at a proportional punishment. It’s a tricky one due to the nature of the sport… Vettel’s outburst had it happened on a tennis court might have resulted in nothing more than a broken racket… in many ways he reminds me of John McEnroe! Of course the nature of motor racing demands the highest respect for the personal safety of other drivers, but it’s interesting that this type of sportsman’s instinctive mindset remains the same in that moment in which they feel wronged. Should we hold racing drivers to a greater degree of accountability for this sort of outburst? Of course I think we should, but the degree to which we do so is perhaps best reached by listening to his (most level headed) motor racing peers.

        2. @anon I call fake news on your assertions about JV intentionally ramming other cars at full speed. He plainly and simply has never played that way. If he actually did something that looks like what you are accusing him of in Brazil investigating will find that it is not as you claim.

    20. Jensen Button’s stock, (BUT:NYSE), just broke out to a new all-time high in an impulsive, five wave, bullish manner.

    21. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      30th June 2017, 8:00

      Well one thing’s for certain…… We are going to hear more podium booing for the rest of the season. Especially with Silverstone coming up.

      1. I’m looking forward to the banners @rdotquestinmark remember the Rosberg one from last year ?

        1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
          30th June 2017, 9:02

          Ha yes I was actually sat across from that for qualifying. Made me giggle, I’m sure there will be another cracker this year.

      2. Very good point, @rdotquestionmark I hadn’t thought about that. It will happen at Silverstone, and more. Vettel doesn’t help himself, though. I wasn’t a fan of Vettel in his Red Bull days, then this year he has really impressed me. And now he’s been a very naughty boy. I am clearly very fickle so if he behaves himself (and ideally owns up to being silly) then all will be forgiven. Booooooooooooooo!!!

        1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
          30th June 2017, 9:31

          @unicron2002 I’m exactly the same. I despised him for his ways and preferential treatment at Red Bull, ever since Turkey 2010 and the front wing episode at Silverstone, but as the years went on I kind of forgot all that and just saw a hardworking talented pro. Now I’m taken right back there again! Ha. Then again I seem to like Alonso a lot nowadays and he’s had some terrible moments in the past.

      3. @rdotquestionmark
        I think drivers will get booed quite frisky even at the next Austrian race but its not gonna be Vettel.

    22. This is why I like Vettel. He is human and fallible and he swears a lot. I can identify with that. It is also why I do not like Hamilton. He is so fake and aloof, not sure what he is trying to be, maybe some kind of christian-gang-banger? Each to his own at the end of the day.

      1. Not every human being likes to swear, be it in public or private, so swearing doesn’t make you more human. Matter of fact, it may imply you are disrespectful of others.
        Another reason you are human is because you should have better control of your faculties. Perhaps he can trace his ancestry to the Vandals, in which case we may excuse some of his excesses.

        1. That’s some excessive none sense! Being human simply means that we are not perfect, that we have our own faults. Just open you eyes really, human beings certainly are not respectful of others, never were and never will be!

          It’s always easy to criticize when you are never in the same situation, never experienced the same kind/level of feelings. But I get it, internet is just so full of perfect human beings, sorry if you all feel disgusted by others.

          1. Of course we have our flaws, but not every human is disrespectful of others. If that is your nature, it is not the nature of every human I have come across.

    23. matijaleader
      30th June 2017, 8:58

      For the first time in at least 10 years, bernie ecclestone has said something that actually makes sense.

    24. Thanks for the literal explanations of a weapon and use as.
      I think I will go with former world champion Button and f1 driver Brundles opinion of the matter. I don’t condone Sebs action but it is what it is.

      Didn’t Senna do worse with his push on Prost at speed? And Senna is a deity to most. Passage of time on this event will be interesting.

      I don’t see anyone discussing the perhaps benefit of the event for Vettel. People are going to think he is a nutter and give him a wide berth. How could this affect Hamilton the next
      time they go wheel to wheel?

      Where are all the Baku race naysaers now??? Hehe.
      Portions of the track, the flat out 16-18? section before the downhill left where the collision happened, that section is breathtaking! Seeing the cars getting sideways out of turn 1 was also pushing a lot of grin buttons.

      1. Times have changed since the era of Senna. Sporting codes and other regulations have since evolved.
        There was a time you could drink beer and drive.
        The FIA has to find out if Vettel will be a danger to other racers on track. If he isn’t aware of his actions surely something is wrong somewhere.

      2. Senna’s actions were sometimes way over the line.

        It made him entertaining (just like this race was entertaining), but please do not confuse ‘entertaining’ with ‘right’.

        And I feel it’s a bit daft to compare an incident from the 80’s to one in 2017…

      3. Conflict and controversy is in the DNA of F1, it’s a dog eat dog arms race where fairness/equality aren’t part of the equation, and in a year with new regs and cars that’s widely described as a return to a more “proper” kind of F1 (not to mention a refreshing step away from the mind-numbing tedium of one-team dominance), so the stakes are higher and some of the old drama has returned. Those who appreciate F1’s history, the various teams and drivers battling tooth and nail for supremacy over the years, will be loving this new F1 we’re fortunate to have this year. I just hope, with the masses now baying for blood, that this isn’t the beginning of the end of that.

    25. GtisBetter (@)
      30th June 2017, 10:22

      When emotions run too high and create dangerous situations, you make sure you punish the guy hard enough that he learns to control himself. This is not running a guy wide on the corner, when the other guy can decide to go for it or not. This is hitting another guy, outside a racing situation, under a safety car, because you are mad and it has no place in sport. Vettel hasn’t shown any remorse as far as i can see and that means that the penalty didn’t do its work.

      1. Let’s not forget kids are watching this brutality and stuff.

      2. @passingisoverrated
        The penalty is not to make people feel remorse its to make them not do it again.

    26. Massa might well still be around in 2018. In his article in motorsport he said something about Lance training to new driving style and letting him using his car setup. It’s bit sour than usual, maybe because he just miss a big opportunity, but he will be the best F1 mentor-team mate ever.

    27. Message for Mosley…go away your views are irelevant now and gor me personally..irritating. you ran F1 like a personal fiefdom and did more damage than good.

    28. As much as I felt frustrated by some of Bernie’s decision and actions, in spite of his vast wealth and connections, the human in me can’t help but feel sad for the old man. He is suddenly alone, like a ghost haunting his last known residence.
      He suddenly has no authority. In the past he had not much time for interviews, but now, he’d love to be asked a question or two.
      It’s like he’s been drained of all his energy.
      I know, he was greedy, he was ruthless, I did want him gone at some point. But his thunder was stolen too suddenly. So sad.

    29. The stewards should’ve handed out the appropriate penalty on the day, that’s their job, just like its their job to enforce track limits.

      However, I think it’s high time ther was some clarification or changes to the rules regarding behaviour behind the safety car. In m opinion Hamiltons driving behind the safety car is completely erratic and has on at least one other occasion cause a crash, and on quite a few more cause the car in second and subsequent positions to take evasive action.

      At the point on the track the initial incident occurred, there was no room for evasive action which caused contact, albeit light.

      Vettel most certainly deserved a heavy penalty – the stewards were gutless as usual (can you imagine if it had been Perez or Kyvat or Massa that had done it) but as well as focussing on that, there needs to be a better focus on behaviour behind the safety car and creating conditions that can cause unnecessary contact.

      1. @dbradock Hamiltons driving behind the SC was absolutely fine. The only reason an incident occurred is because Vettel accelerated into him. If he’d been paying even rudimentary attention to what was actually going on, it wouldn’t have happened.

        He done exactly the same thing the last time round, why was Vettel expecting it to be any different?

      2. You’re entitled to your opinion but the fact is Hamilton didn’t do anything wrong, if he had he’d have been penalised. I fail to see how people think it was erratic. You could make the same argument and say it’s erratic for someone to slow down on a straight. Vettel was too greedy on the second restart after being caught napping on the first one.

      3. I’m not saying the Hamiltons driving wasn’t within the rules, and I’m probably guilty of singling him out because by far he’s been the one leading over the last few years.

        A couple of things,

        Hanging back or driving slowly out of a relatively blind corner on any track is hardly a good thing to do – as a driver (or a rider in my case) you expect and allow for braking of all sorts into a corner, but you expect the lead vehicle to clear the corner for the pack to come through and get some visibility before bunching the pack up. I realise he didn’t have to but it increases the risk of accidental contact all the way back though the pack.

        Similarly, all to often (not just this race) we see the lead car and others brake heavily on the straights from fairly high speed in the hope (I suspect) that the car behind will go past them while avoiding them and get a penalty.

        I agree – the telemetry shows that he didn’t brake so technically no rules were broken but he did create a risky situation by not moving away from the corner.

        In this particular case definitely Vettel stuffed up (both times) but the overall behaviour of drivers, particularly the lead drivers behind the safety car in my opinion is too erratic t he considered safe.

    30. I agree that passion and emotion from drivers is what we want to see. But also that when they break the rules they get an appropriate sanction.

      It is NEVER acceptable to deliberately hit another car, no matter how “passionate” you are. The only two options the FIA can take and still remain credible are a retrospective DQ for Baku, or a 1 race ban. This kind of behaviour has to be stamped out immediately.

    31. What I don’t understand is why there is no furor when this happens at race speed. I am not pro-Vettel or anti-Hamilton; I think it was stupid and only hurt Vettel; and I understand why some people think he should be penalized more harshly. I get all that.

      But I have also seen numerous times when one driver runs another wide, or even makes contact unnecessarily, at race speed. I’m not talking about things that are more/less unavoidable or true racing incidents. I mean, when driver A drives B off a corner because it is something a lot of drivers do and has become accepted. The potential impact of that is far greater than anything done last Sunday. But that is never investigated and rarely mentioned. And at-speed contact occurs but often goes unpunished.

      Again, I understand what this was. But no damage was done, it was very low speed, and the penalty took the race from Vettel. Had Merc not messed up with the headrest, it would have been even more damaging to Vettel’s season. But like many have said, Vettel’s penalty should not change because Hamilton had an unrelated issue.

      The farthest that I think the FIA should go is to say if anything of this nature happens again, then X. Or, a suspended penalty. Given that Hamilton’s car continued (and would have won), they already gave Vettel the harshest in-race penalty they could (aside from disqualifying him) and basically the largest amount of penalty points they could, I think it would be overreaction to now go back and try to make it worse for Vettel/Ferrari just because he was able to drive around his penalty.

      1. “What I don’t understand is why there is no furor when this happens at race speed.”
        Seb is leading championship so far. Find me a better reason to take away chunk of his points? ;) Simple as that.

    32. I’m not a huge Vettel fan for a number of reasons but I really don’t understand why everyone is making an issue of it. The actual incident was Vettel not being able to gauge Hamilton’s pace out of the corner and went into the back of him. Vettel lost his cool and in anger lose control of the car when he was next to Hamilton’s car. He got a 10 second stop and go penalty for that, and like Button has said, let’s move on.

      What I’m not really happy about is Vettel’s behaviour after the race. He absolutely had no recollection of what he actually had done where as all he had to do was come out, hold his hands up and apologise for the touch and it would all have been forgotten. Instead of that, he kept saying “Lewis brake-tested me” when it is clear from footage and previous laps that Lewis kept the same pace and line. 4 times world champion could have handled it better!

    33. I have no problem with driving at 200 mph and drivers banging wheels…that is passion…but people seem to forget the Vettel/Hamilton incident was under the safety car….when marshalls are probably on track…..We owe it to them to protect these people….and its because of the yellow flags, I expect that is where they will attempt to increase the Vettel penalty….

    34. Seb haz been very very bad boy! Must be spanked on the arsch! Hail herr Max!

    Comments are closed.