Stewards are tougher on small teams – Steiner

54 comments on “Stewards are tougher on small teams – Steiner”

1. 

   hunocsi (@hunocsi)
   4th November 2017, 0:19

   Is that rumor about Massa based only on the Autosport feature where the writer suggested they should try Kubica in action?
   1. 

      Joao (@johnmilk)
      4th November 2017, 0:30

      I took my curiosity, but then I saw it was from Marca and I lost interest
      1. 

         Martijn (@)
         4th November 2017, 8:26

         Same here
   2. 

      Neil (@neilosjames)
      4th November 2017, 0:43

      The Marca article is the F1 news equivalent of some guy looking at a plain, sealed cardboard box and speculating that it could contain a watermelon. Then taking a photo of the box, loading up his fancifully-titled blog that gives him an air of respectability and authority, and telling his sixteen readers that it might contain a watermelon.

      I couldn’t even call it a rumour.
      1. 

         hunocsi (@hunocsi)
         4th November 2017, 1:04

         A watermelon? In a cardboard box? Now they have my attention…
         1. 

            Victor Pratt
            4th November 2017, 2:52

            This is relevant to my interests.
         2. 

            Unicron (@unicron2002)
            4th November 2017, 8:41

            Agreed, this Watermelon option has piqued my interest. A watermelon in a Williams is certainly a better option than Di Reata ;)
            1. 

               skylab (@skylab)
               5th November 2017, 17:23

               I would much rather listen to a post race interview with the watermelon than Mr diResta. I’m beginning to think that this watermelon has a career ahead of it. Perhaps as a pundit if the driving doesn’t work out…
   3. 

      Hugh (@hugh11)
      4th November 2017, 12:22

      @hunocsi he said in his retirement video that it’ll be his last race in abu dhabi, so I assume that it is a false rumour.
      1. 

         socksolid (@socksolid)
         4th November 2017, 23:45

         Palmer and kvyat also said they will finish the season in abu dhabi.
2. 

   Neil (@neilosjames)
   4th November 2017, 1:08

   “The rulebook is very complicated and you aren’t going to tell me that a guy like Mika Salo, who just wanders by to be a race steward for a weekend, knows the entire book of regulations.”

   Plenty of respect to you for what you’ve done before and what you do now, Mr. Luyendyk, but… what a silly, ill-informed thing to say. He doesn’t need to know the entire regulations, he needs to know those relevant to the job of an F1 steward. And I’m pretty sure they didn’t just pluck Salo off a beach and say, “There you go Mika, make sure these racing drivers behave. Nah, you don’t need to know the rules, just make it up as you go along.”

   Besides, the ‘problem’ (some believe it exists, some don’t) isn’t from stewards not knowing the rules, it’s from a perceived lack of consistency. And given that every circuit is different, every corner is different, and every incident is different, permanent stewards wouldn’t even begin to solve that.
   1. 

      Patrickl (@patrickl)
      4th November 2017, 9:48

      I remember when Schumacher overtook Alonso in the 2010 Monaco GP at the last restart after a SC situation.

      Damon Hill was the steward and he claimed in the discussion afterwards that the only option they had was the way to severe 20 second penalty. Which dropped Schumacher far back outside of the points instead of right back behind Alonso.

      The rules clearly state (and stated at the time) that the stewards can choose their own time penalty which they deem appropriate. Not only the drive-through and stop-and-go penalties (and their equivalent time penalties) which Damon Hill claimed were their only two options.

      So he clearly did not to know a crucial part of the rule book. Then I worry what else they don’t know. Or interpret differently since most of it is not even written down in the rules, but left up for interpretation by the stewards.

      On the other hand I completely disagree with a single fixed steward. We had that with Alan Donnely in 2008 who kept slapping Hamilton with the weirdest penalties and who turned out to be a consultant who had worked for Ferrari.
      1. 

         Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
         6th November 2017, 19:39

         @patrickl One of the unwritten directives of F1, that has been in place since 2008 (when the stewards were granted access to the list of previous penalties issued that season, and later a database with all decisions from 2008 onwards) is that stewards’ decisions must be consistent with each other.

         If precedent says that an action got penalty X earlier, then the only grounds for issuing penalty Y to someone else is if a relevant differentiating factor can be found. The fact that the rules also allow other options would be irrelevant in that scenario. If Damon and his colleagues could not see any such differentiating factor, then his statement would be true.

         Of course, if you could see such a factor, this would not help their case at all. Rather, you would expect them to use the table of possible penalties to which you alluded (of which there are two – one in the Sporting Regulations and another in the International Sporting Code – depending on where in the regulations the infraction is found) to decide what alternative would better suit the circumstances. (In this specific case, part of the difference is likely to be that Damon believed the car was being used as a weapon, but a lot of viewers thought it was simply hard racing, perhaps taken a bit too far. The precedents used when deciding what is fair depends on the intent one applies to the situation).

         I’m with you with worrying, in the more general case, about what any given steward does or does not know. Or believe (because, as here, belief can be as big an influence as outright knowledge).
         1. 

            Patrickl (@patrickl)
            7th November 2017, 7:19

            @alianora-la-canta Damon Hill was lamenting the fact that they weren’t allowed to give Schumacher a smaller time penalty, when clearly they could have. He claimed hey gave him the smallest time penalty possible. Which it clearly wasn’t.

            So they didn’t even need a database. They didn’t even properly know the one section of the rules truly relevant to their jobs.
            1. 

               Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
               11th November 2017, 1:31

               @patrickl Giving a smaller time penalty would have been incompatible with the regulation that requires consistency of penalties. Therefore what you propose could not have been done. That’s part of the reason why the database exists.
            2. 

               Patrickl (@patrickl)
               11th November 2017, 15:25

               Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.

               First of all, the specific situation had never occurred before so it would even be in this imaginary database of yours.

               Second, the stewards did administer smaller time penalties before.

               Just read back the interviews with Hill at the time. He made it quite clear that he thought only drive-through and stop-and-go penalties existed. While in fact there is a list of half a doen penalties the stewards can choose from “as they see fit” (ie not by some imaginary database which they never seem to use anyway).
   2. 

      Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
      6th November 2017, 19:31

      @neilosjames There are 3 books of regulations, plus various written and some ancillary unwritten directives elsewhere, that are potentially relevant to a F1 steward. Even the ones that only concern driving conduct (the bread and butter of a F1 steward’s job) are fairly extensive. The concern is plausible, though in this case I think it is more likely to be the regulations themselves that are the problem. When they are as overlapping, conflicting and ambiguous as they are, no amount of revising is going to perfectly resolve the problem.
3. 

   Michael Brown (@)
   4th November 2017, 1:19

   Regarding the Brundle tweet, I don’t know why people keep wishing for Porsche and Audi to join F1. After they left WEC, I doubt they’re going to come to F1. FE, maybe.

   As a Lamborghini fan, I would love to see them in F1 again.
   1. 

      Patrickl (@patrickl)
      4th November 2017, 9:50

      Well those companies are all under the same group. Isn’t that exactly what he’s saying? That one of their brands would come in. Not all of them, that would make no sense at all.
4. 

   Sun Siyuan (@peking901)
   4th November 2017, 2:05

   Disagreed with the COTD.
   I lived in China and it is currently the second largest market for Ferrari street car. However, all the car owners that I know didn’t watch F1 race, and they didn’t really care about if Ferrari stay in F1 or not, they bought it only because it is a ‘Ferrari’.
   Surely there are some people care about the performance and the historical value of the team in F1, but personally I think the majority of the potential buyers are not. Meanwhile, losing Ferrari in F1 is absolutely a huge impact for the sports. When I talked to my friend about F1, most of them will ask ‘How is Ferrari going now’. Ferrari or the ‘Red’ car is actually and probably the only symbol for some fans and most amateurs that didn’t familiar with this sport.
   I went to Chinese GP, Monaco GP and Singapore GP this year because of the appearances of the cars are beautiful and Ferrari is finally quick enough to win a race. I want to see the Red car flying straight over the finishing line by first (also my hero Alonso, but apparently not possible with Honda: ( ).
   Anyway, after all this silly decision like the harsh restriction/ridiculous penalty on engine and other thing like ‘Verstappen’ move and not mentioned the HIDEOUS Halo device next year, I can’t imagine how could F1 afford to lose Ferrari.
   1. 

      Martijn (@)
      4th November 2017, 8:33

      “However, all the car owners that I know didn’t watch F1 race, and they didn’t really care about if Ferrari stay in F1 or not, they bought it only because it is a ‘Ferrari’.”

      And that is called Marketing… They bought it since Ferrari built (loaded) their brand and reputation by winning in F1. Hence, these car owners bought it because of Ferrari’s presence in F1
      1. 

         chris (@)
         5th November 2017, 9:03

         @mayrton

         Exactly, Ferrari have an ultimate sports car reputation because of their F1 presence.

         People don’t necessarily buy a normal merc, Honda or Renault because of their dominance in F1. A sporty one of the above with obvious F1 links then possibly. Prob not enough to justify the F1 spend though.

         It’s headlines, mind share and eye balls that attracts companies to F1
      2. 

         Sun Siyuan (@peking901)
         6th November 2017, 10:57

         Yes, I agreed that Ferrari built up their reputation through F1. But whether they stay in F1 is not the main factor for the selling now, especially for the youth buyers as far as I know. Like I said, all the Ferrari owners that I knew, didn’t watch F1 race. They bought it only because it is a ‘Ferrari’ or the most famous supercar in the world. Just like the reason they bought Lamborghini.
         Sometimes when you watch these thing through a view beyond ‘F1 fan’, you may find it easier to understand.
5. 

   Victor Pratt
   4th November 2017, 2:55

   Give it a rest with the persecution complex, Steiner. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent on not being last, despite outsourcing your entire car to Ferrari and Dallara. Sore loser much?
   1. 

      grat
      6th November 2017, 20:55

      They’re currently 8th, and only one point behind Renault, and 6 points behind Toro Rosso. With the spate of Renault PU problems in Mexico, I could see Haas climbing one, if not two, positions by the end of the season.

      The rest of your comments are equally out-of-touch with reality.
6. 

   Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
   4th November 2017, 4:13

   Can’t see VAG (Lambo, Porsche, Vw, Audi) doing f1 is they can’t guarantee utter domination, they’ve dismissed f1 more than anyone else don’t know how Brundle can nurture some affection for VAG. Aston Martin is too small in size and tech for real f1 commitment.
   That Brundle tweet is a sprinkle of hatred. I do understand why Ferrari devaluing F1 is revolting as an f1 fan but particularly if you work in f1, though on the other side, Ferrari is f1 and f1 is Ferrari, the new gimmicks they proposed the storing power for strategy are not f1 and not ferrari and I don’t know if Martin working on media read, they are not Mercedes/Renault either both dismissed the degree of certainty regarding the proposal of the new formula.
7. 

   John Toad (@)
   4th November 2017, 4:17

   Regarding the story ‘Chasing 400kph in the worlds fastest F1 car’, I remember being at Le Mans a decade or more ago before all the chicanes were put into the Mulsanne Straight.
   During the night some of the French team would send out one of their cars with all the air intakes blanked off specifically to hit 400kph down the Mulsanne Straight. This was done simply for bragging rights and I seem to recall Radio Le Mans getting excited when one team actually achieving the goal, although I can’t recall the team name.
   1. 

      FlyingLobster27
      4th November 2017, 9:25

      Gérard Welter’s Peugeot-supported WM was the team. Since the engine was horrendously unreliable, the team decided to focus on the 400 km/h objective. Sure enough, in 1988, a WM reached over 405 km/h, then broke down.
   2. 

      erikje
      4th November 2017, 13:44

      It’s not just the topspeed but during at least a mile in both directions.
   3. 

      Sundar Srinivas Harish
      4th November 2017, 14:23

      Welter, a Peugeot engineer, entered the 24H with the intention of setting a benchmark over 400 KPH.
8. 

   Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
   4th November 2017, 4:29

   Steiner and Haas despite all that Sky sports like to hint about their Ferrari connection and the gagging effect it carries, they seem to be the midfield team that most regularly challenges the top teams publicly. Gene exposes the 2 tier system and the budget issues and Steiner highlights favouritism, I remember SFI doing this but Bernie used to concoct them penalties.
   1. 

      Strontium (@strontium)
      4th November 2017, 8:47

      I’m guessing nothing came of the EU investigation given we’ve not heard anything for about a year. A shame
      1. 

         Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
         4th November 2017, 18:36

         @strontium Indeed.
         I agree @patrickl though Steiner is upset that Alonso pushed Romain wide and off track on both occasions and both debatable overtakes, in my view fair from alonso, anyway if Grosjean was RB or Merc, Alonso would have been penalized for pushing off track and for the contact, the stewards aren’t consistent, the cherry on top of the cake is Max somehow getting no penalty for blocking Bottas whilst in Texas Mag got penalized for a worse block but on q1 not q3.
      2. 

         Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
         6th November 2017, 19:42

         @strontium EU investigations can be spectacularly slow. They make the Swiss Courts of Arbitration at Lausanne look fast. Last time F1 went to an EU investigation, it took 2 1/2 years for the first pre-trial hearing to occur, and 18 months between that and… …settling.
   2. 

      Patrickl (@patrickl)
      4th November 2017, 10:00

      @peartree, He’s wrong about the Favorited though. He clearly has only his own drivers to blame for the supposed favoritism. It’s ridiculous how those two guys keep messing up other peoples practice, quali and races.

      It just boggles the mind that Grosjean actually felt he could keep the position after cutting the corner completely.

      Sure he can pretend that Alonso shouldn’t have muscled his way past Grosjean, but then Grosjean should have given the place to Alonso right away after he fouled up so ridiculously.
9. 

   KaIIe (@kaiie)
   4th November 2017, 7:07

   It would be nice to have some proper research done into racing driver genetics. Clearly, Rosberg is a fine example when things go right. Then we also have Max Verstappen, whose both parents are/were rather skilled at the wheel – you could say that Max was bred to be a racer. However, there are also somewhat failed attempts, like Mathias Lauda, Nicolas Prost, and so on, if you compare what their fathers have achieved.
   1. 

      Biggsy
      4th November 2017, 10:03

      I think he’s talking more about the physical side of the driver, which can’t be altered too much. Not genetics in terms of some direct heritage. More in terms of having to fit certain physical profile – not too high, not too bulky in frame etc.
      1. 

         minnis (@minnis)
         4th November 2017, 10:27

         I also think its about getting their children involved early.

         I’m a musician, so when I have kids I’ll likely introduce them to an instrument rather than, say, ballet.

         Likewise, parents from a racing family are more likely to send their kids go karting to start their careers early.
         1. 

            Biggsy
            4th November 2017, 13:31

            That’s exactly opposite of genetics, or “nature”, as they call it in the context of nature vs nurture.
            What you are saying is “nurture” aspect.
10. 

    Sumedh
    4th November 2017, 7:43

    I think Ferrari’s threat to quit is the most real right now than any time in the past. And the primary reason for this is the rise of Formula E. Like it or not, IC engines (and their variants) are going to be history. Formula 1 has to reinvent entirely for that. If the marquee team decides to take this step themselves, there is no one stopping them and F1 will be left behind.

    It’s like Ferrari are very lucky. Till the time their threats were weak, F1 had Bernie at its head who could not say no to Ferrari. Now the moment we have liberty, who have the balls to call Ferrari’s bluff, this new electric cars scenario props up.
11. 

    Jere (@jerejj)
    4th November 2017, 8:34

    Regarding the ”On this day in F1” section: The 2012 edition of the Abu Dhabi GP is perhaps the best race overall the Yas Marina Circuit has offered so far.
12. 

    Egonovi
    4th November 2017, 9:28

    Felipe Massa could stand down after the Brazilian Grand Prix

    So it will be a wet race at Interlagos.
13. 

    Kgn11
    4th November 2017, 9:41

    Steiner is correct, had it been one of his drivers who did what Seb did in Baku, Singapore & Mexico, the book would’ve been thrown at them.
14. 

    Michael Brown (@)
    4th November 2017, 12:42

    @keithcollantine Breaking: Massa to retire from F1 at the end of this season, replacement not confirmed.
    http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11112552/felipe-massa-confirms-f1-retirement
15. 

    ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
    4th November 2017, 14:17

    I respect Nico Rosberg as a driver, but not as a scientist. Although genetics may explain his physical build, the real reason why the sons of successful race car drivers become successful themselves has way more to do with having the money to drive carts early in life, the nurturing of talent by talented teachers, and the social networks to navigate racing culture. The son of a baker sometimes becomes a baker, and the son of a doctor sometimes becomes a doctor, but genetics has nothing to do with it.
    I’d say Nico’s success was due to his will to emulate and please his father when he was young, and then a love of racing combined with tons of money and the right friends helped seal the deal. The colour of his eyes on the other hand…
    1. 

       Philip (@philipgb)
       4th November 2017, 19:22

       Nico’s physical characteristics and intelligence are largely inherited traits, and in regards to intelligence he’s got the ratio at the lower end of how heritable most researchers believe it to be. Most believe it is 60-80% down to heritable traits, the rest being environmental.

       Intelligence and reaction times are two metrics that are correlated. So his estimate that about two thirds of what makes him a good racer being genetic is a fair statement.

       But, that same two thirds would make him a good engineer, or a good musician, or anything else that above average intelligence and physicality would lend itself well to.

       Where his hypothesis falls down though is that most traits tend to regress towards the mean in subsequent generations. Einstein’s kids are still genius, but not that once in a hundred years kind that he was. There was more chance of Nico being less talented than his father than of being equal or greater.

       Verstappen is a freak, his parents weren’t exactly the best drivers ever, it takes a freak occurrence for talent like his to emerge. That he was in the right environment to be fully nurtured can be attributed to his parents background, but the genetic part of his talent could have just add easily cropped up in some kid from a council estate from Stevenage.
       1. 

          ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
          5th November 2017, 1:40

          Nonsense. Intelligence is not genetically inherited.
          1. 

             Philip (@philipgb)
             5th November 2017, 10:58

             @ferrox-glideh

             Claiming intelligence has no genetic factor is nonsense. Everything about how your body is constructed is encoded within dna including the formation of the brain. Environmental factors such as nutrition can impact development, but ultimately the blueprints are genetic.

             If genes had no affect on intelligence then that would suggest you could take anything and expose it to a human like construct and end up with human like intelligence. But no environmental changes would make a cat as intelligent as a human because the genes to develop a brain sufficiently complex enough are not there.

             And within people there are inheritable factors that govern potential for everything from height, strength, intelligence, and even personality.

             There is no less reason to believe that intelligence can be inherited than there is to believe any other attribute can be inherited. The vast majority of credible research backs up that intelligence is somewhere between 60-80% down to inherited factors.
             1. 

                ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
                6th November 2017, 0:25

                @philipgb

                Much credible research backs up a figure closer to 5%, although genetic mutation after conception muddies these waters. The problem with studying this in the real world is that children are usually raised by their parents in environments similar to those that their parents were raised in, with similar advantages or disadvantages. To assume that psychological traits are so easily inherited opens to door wide to the dangerous pseudo-science of eugenics.
16. 

    Gigantor (@kbdavies)
    4th November 2017, 15:47

    I think Nico Rosberg has a valid point here. I mean, F1 is a sport that is overwhelmingly White – and the colour of your skin is certainly a matter of genetics. I mean, for a sport that is almost 100yrs old, to have Lewis Hamilton as the first and ONLY black driver speaks volumes.

    So whilst Rosberg is correct, he still missed it by a huge margin. Formula 1 is 99.999% genetics. In other words, when everything else is taken into account, the color of your skin is the biggest factor in whether get (forget about making it for now) into Formula 1 or not.
    1. 

       GoodTimes
       4th November 2017, 23:44

       Are you being serious? I can’t tell, honestly.
    2. 

       ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
       5th November 2017, 1:51

       kbdavies Of the 742 (give or take) F1 drivers to have ever raced, at least 97 (by my count) were not “White”, so that’s more like 86.93%.
       So both your math and your basic reasoning are way off.
17. 

    Balue (@balue)
    4th November 2017, 16:12

    Steiner is right, and this is part of the problem with stewards. They have no qualms to meter out punishment for lower ranks or unpopulars, but very hesitant when it comes to top teams or top drivers, especially if it could impact championship deciding positions.

    Fixed stewards will likely be the same, but maybe things could be improved if there were dedicated anonymous race stewards that operated remotely from the track. Perhaps this would free them from the peer/conformity pressure or whatever psychological mechanisms affects this.
18. 

    F1 Codger
    5th November 2017, 13:39

    Lando Norris and McLaren are a natural fit as both have strong links to ORANGE (re: ‘Orlando The Marmalade Cat’).

Comments are closed.