Verstappen’s penalty was not ‘inconsistent’ – FIA

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: FIA race director Charlie Whiting dismisses claims Max Verstappen’s penalty in Austin was an example of “inconsistency”.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Did Jacques Villeneuve make hard work out of winning the 1997 world championship or have the shortcomings of his Williams team been underestimated?

The thing that is often overlooked is that while Williams started the year with a car advantage, A few races into the season Ferrari had caught up and by mid-season McLaren weren’t that far behind either.

Remember that Williams lost Adrian Newey before the season had even started and were never able to develop that car as well as they would have had Adrian stayed (I think their 1998 car shows how much losing Adrian hurt them, Especially when looking at McLaren). At the same time Ferrari had brought in Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne and McLaren had Newey from around mid-season and simply out-developed Williams so by the tail-end of the season I don’t think Williams had any advantage at all.

On top of that remember that Williams also made a lot of blunders in the pits with poor strategy, poor pit stops and poor weather forecasting.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Crm, Gwen, Jeff Bird, Golson and Ostrailya!

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

On this day in F1

  • Jean Behra won the non-championship Moroccan Grand Prix 60 years ago today in a Maserati 250F.

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.

87 comments on “Verstappen’s penalty was not ‘inconsistent’ – FIA”

  1. He drives and acts very much like a teenager, even if he no longer is one.

    1. Unfortunately the powers that be not only also act like lower secondary-school pupils in the playground, but actively encourage such behaviour.

      1. Still better spoken than Seb. Playing dumb after he hit Hamilton in Baku, always shouting on the radio, especially at Mexico last year. i was surprised how quiet he was in Singapore, Malaysia, and Japan.

  2. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
    27th October 2017, 1:17

    Verstappen needs to given a kick up the proverbial. As bad as Vettel last year was with insulting the stewards but instead does not even accept the verdict and apologise to move on.

    1. Why apologize when the fans have been saying for years that the stewards are incosistent. Even some prior to the US GP on this forum saying that calls for track limits were always ignored at COTA. 10 second penalty for Vettel in Baku, vs 10 seconds for Kimi in Spa, and Max’s 5 in COTA and a point on his license. Really you’re going to give him a point for passing someone even though it wasn’t dangerous driving and in fact was avoiding an incident.

  3. Wow people have really been piling in on Verstappen, as if they’d never seen an unapologetic racing driver before. At least he backs it up with talent. I say the sport could use a couple more abrasive personalities that speak their mind even if they’re wrong. Better that than a grid full of PR drones.

    1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      27th October 2017, 8:25

      I really like his no nonsense say it how it is approach. The establishment can’t handle it!!!! Begging him to apologise for disrespecting their precious feelings.

      1. @rdotquestionmark I’m not sure you would have felt so happy with Max either, had you been in the stewards’ or FIA’s position. FIA is the governing body here, so I believe they deserve at least some respect from the drivers, especially if the decision that has caused controversy is not unanimously considered to be unfair. There are plenty of people on both sides of the argument here. You can’t just call one of the people governing and watching over F1 “idiot” and “mongol”, and happily walk away, thinking that the entire universe revolves around you.

        The very act of using derogatory words is understandable and can be empathized with, when done in the heat of the moment, but that doesn’t automatically make it the right thing to do.

        Apparently though, Max has apologized on Instagram, so that’s good I suppose.

        1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
          27th October 2017, 15:20

          I wasn’t aware of the mongol comment. Is this real or something mixed in translation? @neutronstar

      2. The establishment can’t handle it!!!! Begging him to apologise for disrespecting their precious feelings.

        Max’s comments against the Stewards were totally inappropriate. Max cheated by cutting the corner, and isn’t the correct punishment for cheating to have Max’s time annulled? Do we want that? No, I’d rather live with him being given the 5 second time penalty. So what would you prefer: Keep the current result and have Max apologise or have Max’s race result annulled? What of the 12 other drivers who were classified behind Max and didn’t cheat, don’t they have a right to feel aggrieved when a person who cuts a corner is classified ahead of them?
        As far as I know it is called “leniency” when the correct punishment for cheating is to annul a person’s result, but instead of that they had 5 seconds added to their race result, which just happened to be just enough for the contestant who didn’t cheat to get their correct race place.
        So yes, maybe the Establishment did show bias shown towards Max, but it was in Max’s favour.

    2. @maciek

      Better than a grid full of PR drones? What?

      Why do you think that Max is the only one who speaks his mind? It’s the same with many other drivers on the grid. Carlos Sainz refused to accept blame for his antics in Bahrain (where he hit Stroll), weeks after the incident and said that not only was his penalty unfair but also complained about the fact that drivers cannot appeal the stewards’ decision. I don’t think I have to remind you about what happened between KMag and Hulkenberg.

      Hamilton, famous for being emotionally bare, was SO bare in the post-qualy interview in Monaco that his lack of confidence that day was shining through every word that came out of his mouth. Grosjean speaks his mind all the time…maybe even too much. Kvyat never hesitated to put his thoughts out there. And Daniel Ricciardo…well, I dare you to call him a “PR drone”. Alonso has become famous for speaking his mind in the recent years (especially against Honda). Most recent non-Honda example? “Lewis has had a better career than Vettel”.

      So yeah, drivers other than Max are not all PR drones. Every driver speaks his mind in emotionally intense moments at least, if not otherwise…Max is not special in that regard, and neither does he bring anything new here. It’s just that since he is SO popular, his actions and words are paid a lot more attention and hyped up a lot…and hence, all other instances of less popular, less flashy drivers speaking their minds are ignored/ forgotten quickly and they are relegated to the “PR drone” zone.

      Or maybe, you’re specifically looking for rebellious, abrasive drivers only? Everything that’s not a storm is boring?

      1. @neutronstar perhaps you took my words a bit too literally. Basically I was just putting out a viewpoint in opposition to all the slagging Verstappen’s been getting since his comments. I think people are just too happy to dive onto the tut-tut pile when a young, up and coming, confident talent makes a misstep. Wasn’t that long ago that was the case with Hamilton I seem to remember.

    3. Talent shouldn’t drive as sloppily as Max did on Sunday. Call me spoilt by better drivers, but I expect more competence from F3 drivers, let alone their F1 counterparts.

    4. petebaldwin (@)
      27th October 2017, 13:00

      He’s too much of a threat to Lewis to be popular on here sadly. Rosberg is hated on here. Button isn’t popular. Even Alonso gets a strangely high amount of criticism. There’s a common theme.

      1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
        27th October 2017, 15:22

        I would say no one splits opinion more than Lewis on here.

    5. Reminds me of Ayrton Senna in the documentary Senna. That’s why people loved him.

  4. Enough of this talk about a “privilege” and who is too afraid to drive with whom. Can we get 4 Huracans/GT3s/Stingrays straight off the lot and put HAM, VET, RIC, and VER in for a 5 lap race before the formation lap? I would rather watch that than some histrionic flag-waving and cheerleaders. You can even put a celebrity (of similar weight) in the passenger seat of each car so Leigh Diffy can talk about celebrities, which is what he likes.

  5. Only Max cut a corner and if you look at previous examples of other drivers cutting a corner, [Jolyon] Palmer was penalised in Monza and [Sergio] Perez was penalised at Spa for doing exactly the same thing.

    Charlie Whiting is clearly wrong!
    Last time a driver cut a corner and Garry Connelly was a steward (almost a year ago on lap 1) this same steward did nothing.
    No there is no consistency, and yes it seems Connelly still seems to go after Verstappen.

    I actually agree that Verstappen was wrong last week; but please don’t pretend the stewards have been any thing close to consistent.

    PS in F1 it’s not ‘cutting corners’ that gives you the most advantage but ‘extending corners’. And none of those were officially investigated last week!

    1. totally agree !
      the ‘not gaining a lasting advantage’ has not been applied consistently, that person last year won the race
      the only thing consistent so far has been their inconsistency …

    2. Carlos Sainz cut the same corner by the same amount when passing Perez earlier in the race (a position that was held, and might not have been obtained without the corner-cut), and nothing happened. That was with the same 4 stewards in place.

      Clearer disproof of the hypothesis of “consistency” would be difficult to provide. Asking Verstappen to apologise on the basis of either negligent degrees of ignorance or a lie (as this clearly is) is disgusting and makes a mockery of the rules requiring respect of the FIA.

      A better basis for requiring an apology would be that sportspeople are expected to have better manners than Max showed, and that in F1, pre-emptive apologies (let alone retrospective ones) have become the norm in the past 12 months. Simply because being rude to stewards was acceptable in Jos Verstappen’s day does not mean it is now.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        27th October 2017, 13:28

        @alianora-la-canta – It is acceptable though. Vettel did it and the precedent was set – the punishment is you have to make a hollow apology and no further action is taken. If Vettel was banned for a race, Verstappen wouldn’t have said what he did but as we’ve seen with track limits – if it’s not policed, others (specially the younger, more easily influenced ones) will follow.

        1. Exactly @petebaldwin. It’s easy to critisize Max now, but to me what Vettel said was worse – he named Charlie explicitly, for example. And they allowed him to get off the hook just with that team lawyer/pr formulated apology. If they would now penalize Verstappen for what he said, that would really get into bad territory.

        2. At the time Vettel made the apology, Charlie didn’t know an offence had been committed. It can’t have been all that hollow…

      2. @alianora-la-canta

        Carlos Sainz cut the same corner by the same amount when passing Perez earlier in the race

        Except he didn’t, At no point when he passed Perez did Sainz put 4 wheels off track.

        The image that was going around which showed Sainz with 4 wheels off the inside of the track was from when he was fighting to pass Ocon. Sainz gained no advantage from it as he not only didn’t manage to get by Ocon & finished behind him but he also ended up further behind him not that far up the road.

        Here is a video of Sainz/Ocon:

        And Sainz pass on Perez here:

        1. exactly what I mean.
          That 2nd video shows 2 overtakes done when leaving the track in the first minute alone (Vettel on Hamilton & Bottas on Ricciardo) = inconsistent.

          1. Vettel didn’t pass Hamilton off the track, He was already ahead before he went off track & going off track gained him nothing.

            And Bottas was pushed off the track by Ricciardo (They actually made contact) which is why Ricciardo was investigated (And let off) for that move. Daniel even admitted this:

            “I tried to pass Valtteri in turn one, we touched a bit and I kind of pushed him wide. He went off the track but kept his position but you could argue he went the longer way around, and I made contact and maybe forced him there.”

          2. @stefmeister, But then the reason Vettel got ahead was because he braked a lot later and as a result he went off. So he needed to go wide to get that advantage

            Hamilton did get a penalty for the same thing in France. He overtook Vettel and was well ahead when he missed the next corner a little. Hamilton got a drive-through penalty for that.

        2. @stefmeister Sainz had 4 wheels off the track when passing according to the photo you reference, and he would not have made the pass without doing so. Therefore, Sainz broke the regulation at that point and was not penalised. (At no point did I suggest Sainz/Ocon was an infraction, otherwise you may be sure I’d have mentioned it…)

          I make no comment on the various instances of drivers going wide, as it is at least theoretically possible to consistently determine going wide at a specific corner cannot gain advantage (and therefore not penalise anyone for doing so). It is not possible to say cutting a specific corner is an advantage in one overtaking move and not in another overtaking move in the same race, when the type of corner-cut was identical in both instances.

          1. @alianora-la-canta But Sainz didn’t pass anyone with 4 wheels off track because the image that shows him with 4 wheels off track wasn’t from any point where he was doing an overtake.

            @patrickl I don’t agree, Primarily because he didn’t run off because he braked too late. If you watch his OnBoard you see that he only starts to run wide when he starts to release the steering when he’s already ahead of Lewis. Had he kept the lock on he would have easily stayed on the track & would have still been ahead of Lewis, Partly because Lewis had already accepted that he’d lost the corner & backed out of it to pull in behind Vettel.

          2. @stefmeister Well, he had 4 wheels off the track when he passed Perez on TV, so either that screenshot is from when the overtake occurred, or Sainz actually did it twice, which is even worse.

  6. I can’t believe the FIA is begging him to apologise.
    Nothing surprised me Any more from them this year.

    1. ‘It would be nice if he did…” is not really begging. Call a referee an idiot in pretty much any other professional sport and you’ll find yourself reprimanded.

    2. OOliver, I would say the comments that Max made later where he called Connelly a “mongol”, a derogatory term for somebody with Down syndrome, is something that he should arguably apologise for.

      1. He called him an idiot not mongol and also not vs Mika Salo but that other person every one knows.
        Not like Vettel who cursed an person by name.

        The only thing Max said is that he could used an other word(then idiot) but he was an bit angry/disappointed.
        And he shouldn’t excuse himself for that as the FIA already twice removed him from podium which i find an worse offence.

        1. Seems Max already did apologise:

          Verstappen has responded with an apology on Instagram, suggesting he already said sorry during the FIA press conference and reiterating that he regrets his choice of language.

          “Further to what I said in the FIA Press Conference earlier today, I would once again like to apologise for the language that I used following the US Grand Prix,” posted Verstappen.

          “My comments were made in the heat of the moment. I know that the words I used were inappropriate and they were not directed at any one person.

          “I certainly did not mean to cause any offence and I hope we can move on and enjoy this race weekend.”

        2. @macleod

          He called him an idiot not mongol

          I understand he said both: he used the former in English and the latter apparently in Dutch.

          1. @keith – correct, he said that in Dutch.

            Is it possible for you to post the Charlie Whiting press conference transcript (including questions from journalists/reporters) I read somewhere that CW had some troubles answering them.

            Semi off topic – regarding the penalty most newsfeeds swung their opinion 90 degrees (first most were in favour of VES, now more about the penalty was correct and his comments to the stewards)

            The Dutch reporter stated several times he does not want to be called a journalist but reporter, because he is depending on Drivers, teams, FIA, Fom etc. to get reactions. If his questions are too hard/difficult (to answer politically correct) or not agreed in advance he will be banned/ignored from the grid. (for short he’s depending on F1 and can’t be objective)

            Perhaps a word from you on this?

          2. We (almost) don’t use term Mongol not anymore as it target innocent persoons with the Down syndrone.

            In Dutch he used only idioot (idiot) but that was later when he was cooled down. I thought he said the same in English but we couldn’t hear the muttering when he left the coolroom.

          3. @keithcollantine I think you should have included Verstappen appologising for his language on social media in this round up.

            He did appologize already last monday after the race on a Dutch F1 show and now again. Leaving this out of the round-up and the way the title was worded on the other article makes Verstappen look way worse than what he has acutally said on the matter imho.

      2. My point is they should bring him before a panel or be censured, not to politely ask that he should try apologise.

        1. Turns out he’d apologised before the request, so there was no longer authority to demand any sort of (re-)apology.

    3. That race director is setting the best example on how not to do the job. He has already risked drivers lives and let one die, and now asking apology is just new low for FIA and race director.
      @Anon: I dont remember Max used the term: “mongol” , I do remember him calling him an idiot far less offensive than what Vettel did last year.

  7. Steph Curry was just fined US$50,000 for throwing his mouth guard out of frustration at a call, as well as apologizing. Max Verstappen calls an official an idiot (insulting the FIA), and encourages fans to not attend the USGP next year (slap in the face for the local organizers and Liberty Media). The FIA thinks it would ‘be nice’ if he apologized, and Liberty does absolutely nothing. Yeah… the image you want for your sport is to cater to the bratty kid throwing a tantrum in the middle of a store.

    1. Liberty does absolutely nothing

      They love it!

    2. That has already apologised at least twice before the FIA ever found out about it, and again afterwards, and for an offence which carries a maximum penalty of $10000 (that can only be levied if no apology is forthcoming). The FIA thus has no scope to compel a penalty.

  8. Hamilton never been asked to apologize when he said the same steward ‘idiot’ back in Japan 2016.

    1. Probably because he didn’t go beyond that – he didn’t swear, he didn’t use an epithet that has been deprecated for decades or is deemed unusually offensive, he didn’t do any other aggravating things such as suggest fans shouldn’t attend next year. Hamilton knew the edges of accepted practise and followed them, Verstappen did not and inadvertently sailed over the edge.

      The fact is that both broke the letter and spirit of the regulations. However, in this as in many other regulations, enforcement is a matter of degree.

  9. As much as I dont have a clue about track racing, but have done my share of backroad,go kart I see two right hand corners with clearly Raikonen following the racing line as he has the experience to know that there is no way of a clear overtake in that section , as you approach to that sequence is to open up a bit the first corner and aim for a tighter line at the second. What Verstappen did was to pluck hus bull right in the middle of the corner and across the racing line .. What is not seen very well from the replays provided in media is how much space Raikkonen gives up when he realises Verstappen is on the grass painted with concrete ! .
    Another important point is the fact that while all through the weekend cars were leaving the track limits , was on the outside of the corner and not the inside , and rarely while gaining a position , hence driving away from the racing line, what is not the case of Raikkonen and Verstappen ( who clearly was crossing the racing line ) .
    Third point is , yes , Raikonen left the first corner a bit open , but had he covered the first apex good, the second corner would have been a mess for him with the worn tyres.

    1. Kimi saw that Max had broken the regulations and knew that one way or the other, the battle was already resolved in his favour. No point risking carbon fibre after that.

      1. A motorsports fan
        28th October 2017, 13:24

        so that’s why kimi pulled out his stopwatch and crawled across the finish line exactly 4.9 seconds behind max – leaving a whopping 0.1 second safety margin.

        but maybe you are right – kimi was thinking, if i finish 5.1 seconds behind max the the penalty will be 10 seconds.

  10. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
    27th October 2017, 8:40

    Great COTD I fully agree, also the sport wanted Ferrari to finally get that title so they had a lot against them. Pre-2003 Jacques was an exceptional talent before it all went wrong. Frentzen was no slouch and he destroyed him. He also drove the wheels off that BAR. I always wished he stayed at Williams to see how he would have fared in the BMW era. I’ve loved the 1997 articles we’ve had this year, what an incredible season that was.

    1. Not arguing with you here. Jacques didn’t forget how to drive after 2003. He just never had the car. And he couldn’t stay at Williams because after 97 they no longer had a works Renault engine so straight away he was never going to be able to defend his title. Without an available top seat to go to he risked his career starting a new team. And it didn’t pay off. It was always going to be an uphill battle doing that, but on paper at the time all the ingredients seemed like they could have added up to something. JV’s presence on the team is what brought Honda back to F1, and it was by their insistence that they would get it right that JV stayed. He always remained a monster driver, but like FA now, simply hadn’t the car to show it, for the most part.

      1. You have to give him credit for starting his own team though. I mean, it wasn’t “his” team per se, but he was heavily involved in its birth.

        I think he’s been pretty forthcoming with what happened at BAR. It basically started to go pear shaped for him when Dave Richards took over. He was at odds with Richards from the get go and things never worked out. I’ve always liked Jacques, but he allowed team politics effect his performance in the latter part of his career. I think if he’s been in the right environment, he would have continued to flourish into the early 2000s.

      2. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
        27th October 2017, 15:32

        @robbie Also Williams had to tighten the purse strings losing works backing. I more just meant theoretically I would love to have seen how it would have went if he could have stayed. Some of his best driving was in that BAR, particularly 2000 but the fallout with Dave Richards and Pollock getting the boot meant it was no longer his team and it all went sour going into 2003 season. Bitterness took over and he never seemed the same to me. The 2004 Renault comeback was poor but understandable and he didn’t stack up too well against Massa in 2005 at Sauber. He looked good again at BMW but I just felt he was never the same driver, a little like Kimi these days. I think that tarnished his reputation with people but when he was young and hungry, trying to take Copse and Eau Rouge flat he was something else.

        1. @rdotquestionmark Fair comment. I just don’t think JV had it in him to not be as hungry as previously, and I think it was more the case of the driver being coloured by the car.

  11. Why is it that the stewards and FIA have so much trouble with the term ‘gaining an advantage’? It’s so obviously more than ‘gaining a position’. It baffles me.

    1. They have no trouble. They got it right.

      1. Here, yes. With the near-identical situation of Sainz gaining a place by cutting the exact same corner against Perez (that went unpenalised)? Not so much.

    2. @robbie You have to admit that extending a corner to keep momentum is gaining laptime which helps you in quali and in the race while closing/maintaining a gap to a rival or when trying to keep a position (Bottas/RIC for example). The same goes for all the cars cutting turn 7 all weekend long. It helped them close a gap in the race and get fasters laptimes in qualy.

      Now, the rule is ‘leaving the track AND gaining an advantage’. To me a driver would obviously not want to leave the track UNLESS he gains an advantage. The only other reason would be an unwated mistake (spins, locks up etc).Therefor, the reason drivers consistantly cut T7 and extended T1, T10, T11 and T19 was to gain an advantage.

      And that begs the question, why not penalize any off those situations but this one? Had all of those been penalized, the driver (in this case Verstappen) would have either taken the penalty as fair or more likely, not cut the corner because he’d know it wasn’t allowed.

      1. @jeffreyj I’m assuming the answer is that they didn’t deem the offs from going wide as gaining any significant advantage over any one other driver, as they were all doing it and the gain in time would have been tiny, and not worth over-policing and looking too restricting. In fact if everyone was doing it there would have been zero difference from one going wide, relative to all the other drivers doing it. Apples to apples ‘advantage’ of you will. But when one driver cut a corner off the track for a pass for a trophy, that was starkly different to the other offs, and was hardly tiny in it’s result. Hardly apples to apples.

        1. @robbie but it’s nonsense, how is it over policing to treat all infringements the same? It could be argued that had Raikkonen not been cutting/extending corners for every lap of the race up until that point that Verstappen could have caught him three laps earlier and hand ample opportunity to pass before the chequered flag (I’m not suggesting that is actually the case, the point is we don’t know and can’t know). Turning a blind eye to 99% of infringements and punishing others just because the benefit gained is more tangible doesn’t make it right or fair. Some drivers gained from going outside track limits period and the FIA isn’t interested. It was clear in the comments in the poll that whilst a majority thought that Verstappen’s penalty was not incorrect, we did think it was inconsistent.

          1. @jerseyf1 That’s fair
            comment and I’m only speculating as to why going wide at turn 19 and others was fine all weekend. I’ll suggest that the FIA did know, upon witnessing from FP1 on that momentum seemed to be carrying the cars wide, particularly at T19, that there was little gain. So by letting everyone do it, that made it an equivalent situation. I suggest that there was not enough to gain such that your scenario of Max passing Kimi 3 laps earlier doesn’t fly. If it was that much of a gain, they likely wouldn’t have allowed it. Also, by letting all drivers do it, that would have meant to them that Max could have ‘gained’ just as much as anyone else going wide, so again, equivalency. The time there was not equivalency was when Max actually passed Kimi off the track on the inside where nobody had been doing that all weekend, and this time it was for a trophy. I think the fact that the majority here thought his penalty was ‘fair’ indicates they thought it was a different enough move from what everyone else was doing at T19, including being an actual pass, that it was worth a 5 second penalty.

      2. The original rule was that leaving the track – in and of itself – was against regulations. Piecemeal clarifications regarding advantage are a recent invention, get frequently changed (especially in interpretation) and it’s hardly surprising that stewards cannot agree with one another about how to enforce something so vague… …even when it’s the same people watching different but near-identical incidents in the same race.

  12. You know why you lose so many fans and audiences these years FIA? Because all the silly decisions you made and all the arrogant attitude you acted, to F1’s fans, and the drivers as well.

  13. More time has been spent on Verstappen incident by the F1 media than the MSM on the Vegas shooting.

  14. In Baseball, Basketball and other sports, individual referees’ calls per minute are pretty high and tolerance over claims must be low, otherwise producing never ending games. In F1, stewards review, verify, discuss and decide collectively on their own opinion or as a result from third parties claims. Having such advantage over other sports, it is unbelievable F1 is so inconsistent. Beside that, neither Raikkonne’s nor Ferrari’s claim was immediate or public on radio. Why? Because Max’s violation wasn’t clear. And for many of us, it was fair and square.

    1. Max’s violation was blatant, at least to me. Ferrari and Raikkonen didn’t need to claim anything because the stewards and Race Control should have been able to see the problem themselves.

  15. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    27th October 2017, 13:18

    Is the FIA trying to convince us that their penalties are consistent? That’s one of the best jokes ever made! At least they have a great sense of humor!

    1. Consistent last Sunday. Yes they were.

      1. Had they been consistent, Sainz would also be carrying a 5-second penalty for doing the same move mid-race against Perez. He isn’t, so they’re not. The stewards haven’t even managed to be consistent about one corner in one race, let alone anything more complex.

    2. Last year at Mexico the stewards didn’t penalize Rosberg or Hamilton for ‘leaving the track and gaining an advantage’ but they did penalize Verstappen for it. This year at the US GP they didn’t penalize anybody for ‘leaving the track and gaining an advantage’ except Verstappen.

      That’s pretty consistent if you ask me lol.

      1. @jeffreyj Oh come on stop it already. First lap is different and has always been so.

        1. @patrickl I could understand letting Rosberg’s cut go because he was fighting into T1 on the first lap as you said. However, Hamilton was all on his own and then just locked up.

  16. Okay guys. There is no consistency and as a result all rules are invalid and you can all do as you like.

    1. Maybe the FIA will start to deem it ok if cars are underweight as long as it’s “only a little bit”. Wings can flex slightly more than tests allow as long as it doesn’t make the cars “significantly faster” and teams can ignore the fuel flow limit as long as they don’t do it when completing an overtake.

    2. The FIA are heading towards doing exactly this – in practise if not in intention or word.

      1. Remember when upon appeal the FIA gave James Hunts’ win back at Spain in 76 for being too wide. Remember when fans at the British Grand Prix in 76 chanted “We want Hunt” and he was allowed to go back in the race after being involved in an incident on the first lap and pulling off the track behind a wall?

  17. “It would be nice if he did.

    Else he may never see his mama again…”

  18. @keithcollantine – Under the interim system (10-8-6-…) Vettel would still be alive in the WDC hunt, though just barely. If my math is right he would be 28pts back with 30 to go.

  19. Many many people have been complaining about “inconsistent” stewarding the last few seasons.
    So now it is being challenged by one of the young stars it’s all at once not true anymore.
    Funny how anyone can use the same facts and come up with a different story.
    Of course the stewards have been inconsistent: nobody understands the rulings.

    Max is bringing BIG change to F1 in many ways. He is great for the sport.
    I love it.

  20. Consistent???
    Rosberg and Hamilton ran each other of the track in Spain 2016: no penalties
    Bottas runs Max and Kimi of the track in Spa: no penalty
    Vettel runs Max and Kimi of the track: no penalty.
    Max runs Ricciardo of the track: penalty (from Connely)

    From the 8 times that Connely stewarded a race he penalyzed Max 5 times.
    He even asked Mercedes to complain about Max one race even though Wolf Lauda didn’t want to.

    1. If Max ever gets top Red Bull drive over Daniel, look out. He’ll get penalized every race Connely stewards. It seems like whenever Max is going to finish better than Daniel: Connely penalizes Max. Mexico 2016: Max Penalized, Vettel Penalized, Ricciardo to the podium. Hungary 2017. Max hits Daniel and puts him out of the race. Max penalized. COTA 2016. Daniel has the better car but retires with engine trouble. The Aussie Connely is frustrated his home guy is out and takes out frustration on Max. He doesn’t want to see Max shine when Daniel doesn’t. If they’re involved in the sport, they are going to be a fan. Connely wants Australia to look better and someone in Australia may be paying Connely some bucks with some deal (sponsors, company, etc) to do what he can to have Daniel look better than Max. Just my theory, but the Australia bias should be obvious.

  21. Driver stewards should only be allowed to come from constructors and teams that are no longer a part of F1. A former Ferrari driver making a decision against a guy where the outcome puts a Ferrari driver on the podium. Hmm. Certainly doesn’t leave room to say there is no doubt any bias involved.

    1. That’s likely to end up on the same cutting room floor as Ron Dennis’ suggestion in 2000 that no F1 steward (barring the local representative) should come from a nation with a team or driver in the championship. I recall Max Mosley laughing that one out of the room on the basis that the majority of stewards would be ineligible for service as a result.

  22. Olav Mol, a Dutch F1 reporter, told on TV that Charlie Withing off the record admitted the penalty would not been given for place 5. But on the record in the press conference he sais the exact opposite LOL

  23. A motorsports fan
    28th October 2017, 13:57

    i love max’s speed, his guts, his absolute will to win, his uncompromising bluntness and what he has reintroduced to the sport in general: excitement.

    in order to be a max fan, i need max-haters too. no fun in watching a match when all cheer the same side.

    happy race weekend all!

Comments are closed.