Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Hockenheimring, 2018

Hamilton keeps German GP win as stewards reprimand him for pit entry violation

2018 German Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Lewis Hamilton has kept his victory in the German Grand Prix following the stewards’ investigation into his pit entry violation.

The stewards deemed Hamilton had broken the regulations by crossing the pit entry line when he changed his mind not to enter the pits during a Safety Car period. However they decided the infraction was not serious enough to deserve a time penalty, and issued a reprimand.

Stewards decision

The Stewards reviewed video and audio evidence, heard from the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and the team representative. It was clear that there was an infringement of the above mentioned rule – the driver clearly crossed the line separating the pit entry from the track.

In deciding on the penalty for the infringement, we took into account the following mitigating factors:
(i) the driver and the team candidly admitted the mistake and the fact that there was confusion within the team as to whether to stay out or to enter the pits and that led to the infringement.
(ii) The fact that the infringement took place during a Safety Car period.
(iii) At no time was there any danger to any other competitor and the change in direction was executed in a safe way.

Taking all of the above into account, including considering previous infringements of the above rule, we are of the opinion that a reprimand would be the appropriate penalty for the said infringement on this occasion.

Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal the decisions of the Stewards (with the exception of those referred to in Article 12.2.4 of the FIA International Sporting Code), in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Don't miss anything new from RaceFans

Follow RaceFans on social media:

2018 F1 season

Browse all 2018 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
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.

104 comments on “Hamilton keeps German GP win as stewards reprimand him for pit entry violation”

  1. Bummer :(

    1. A 10 second stop and go penalty would be more apropros. But the Liberty stock is intact and moving upwards. Who watches the watchmen? (Rolex?)

    2. This is Formula Farce now

  2. Perfect response given the situation.

  3. J-dog-the-clown
    22nd July 2018, 18:39

    Correct decision.

  4. Correct decision. Well deserved win.

  5. Seems fair!

  6. Good call and we’ll thought through.

  7. This situation hasn’t stopped bothering me.
    The rules state the driver mustn’t cross the pit entry line once they’ve committed. These ‘mitigating factors’ don’t convince me. Kimi wasn’t penalised in Nürburgring 2007 because didn’t mean to do that since the conditions were slippery. And/or he actually payed dearly for his mistake by pitting an entire lap later.
    But Hamilton’s transgression was far more serious because it was intentional and he gained a lot by not pitting at all in the end. Hamilton’s move was clearly unsafe. No doubt about this.
    Another big foul from FIA is the inexcusable delay of this incident’s investigation. I was waiting the graphic during the race announcing it, but was left frustrated. This degrades the sport not only to the audience but also the drivers.
    And now we’re left in this awkward situation, debating whether Hamilton should be penalised for something that obviously should be illegal. And something that happened hours ago!
    I don’t expect much from FIA, considering how delayed this investigation and their leniency to Vettel and Hamilton. Vettel didn’t get black-flagged for that incident in Baku, why would Hamilton be penalised for this?

    1. These mitigating factors are a joke.

      i) Confusion and admission of guilt are not valid defences.
      ii) Apparently, some rule infringements are okay during the safety car. That makes total sense.
      iii) So what? Because no-one got affected, that means it’s okay?

      1. *slams table* THANK YOU!

        1. lmao esports games have more serious rulling.

      2. @carbon_fibre +1, absolute load of BS from the FIA. He gained a win by breaking the rules and has been allowed to keep it

        1. But hopefully this puts a final stop to all this “Ferrari international assistance” and “stewards are against Hamilton” rubbish we keep hearing. Doubt it will though…

          1. @jamie-er that was definitely a thing in the past. But that pretty much ended with Schumacher, Todt, Brown era. These days? I’d say it would be preposterous to suggest any one driver or team is getting an advantage. They are simply trying a lot harder now to impose the smallest penalty possible to promote hard racing. People whined about Ferrari’s penalties crashing into Mercedes. People whine about today. People whine when Magnussen doesn’t get penalized. When Verstappen gets penalized or when he doesn’t. F1 fans are probably the most whiny bunch I have found in professional sports.

          2. Michael Brown (@)
            22nd July 2018, 21:49

            Now it’s “championship leader international assistance” Vettel managed to get a 10s penalty for his collision with Hamilton in Azerbaijan last year, because the stewards didn’t want to influence the championship too much.

          3. @ajpennypacker I agree largely with that, it was a thing in the past but is no longer.

            I am guilty of my share of whining (like today), although I’d say football fans are also quite bad, whenever their team loses it’s always the referee’s fault

        2. He didn’t break any rule.

          He didn’t cross *a* line between the pit entry and the track.

          The FIA need to use this as a chance to clarify their unclear rule.

          He actually crossed TWO lines, the rule specifies THE line, therefore it would not stand up in a court of law.

          Obviously drivers cross the line delineating the circuit whenever they recover from an off track excursion, so if the penalty is for crossing the line at the side of the pit lane, they should have penalised Vettel in China 2016, and probably a lot of other such incident too.

          FIA, clarify the rule, it’s pretty simple.

        3. your wrong but never mind, Rosburg won a world championship by cheating !!!!!

      3. @carbon_fibre HAM might not be penalised (many will say that’s fair, some others won’t) but he got a reprimand meaning the decision was that he did break the rules.

        besides, if he manages to get iirc 2 more reprimands soon enough….

      4. Exactly, the same feeling crept upon me as with the Silverstone grand prix. Two times a safety car was brought in, where a virtual safety car would have sufficed. This was done only to help Hamilton close the gap and back on the podium again. These rulings stink, the inconsistency stinks, each time explained differently with the same set of rules and a predictable outcome. Either to keep the championship “exciting”, or to help Lewis creep up to Vettel or vice versa.

    2. I don’t think your ‘he gained over 15s by not pitting’ is a valid way to see it – the question is, was it unsafe (bc. misleading to others on track, and thus creating a dangerous situation), so no, not ‘far more serious’; I guess the stewards disagreed it was unsafe, or intentional to let such a situation happen, given their verdict.

      I do agree with the second part, apparently Whiting and the stewards decided to wait until after the race ‘so they had the time and quiet to do it without the rain on track situation’ I sort of see that, but not really, given that the facts weren’t in dispute at all, and it was of importance to the race win.

      I am not quite sure I agree with that last sentence, but I do agree that the way the FIA dealt with this doesn’t help combat a view like that.

      1. the question is, was it unsafe (bc. misleading to others on track, and thus creating a dangerous situation), so no, not ‘far more serious’; I guess the stewards disagreed it was unsafe, or intentional to let such a situation happen, given their verdict.

        That’s the point, though. They are lying. It was obviously unsafe. Why would teams be punished for not screwing a wheel to car properly since it only affects their race? Because it’s deemed unsafe. Same thing.

        1. +1, either it’s always unsafe or it’s not unsafe. And “because it was behind the safety car”… surely if anything that makes it worse not better

          1. If this is the case they need to penalise every driver who recovers to the track after a spin/incident. Did he impede another car?

      2. This is a ridiculous decision by the stewards. The mitigating circumstances are a load of nonsense.

        This has NOTHING to do with whether it was safe or not. The rule states simply that you cannot cross that line.

        Have you ever heard of a driver who crossed the white line on pit exit avoiding a penalty because they did it safely? No. It should be the same here. A classic example of rules for some and not for others.

    3. I’m glad he wasn’t penalised, otherwise racefans.net would be unbearable for a few days and this is my go to place for F1. That is the best mitigation factor that I can think of

      1. 👏👏👏👏

    4. So 2007 was OK for Rai to not get a penalty? but 2008 SPA penalty for Ham was OK to receive 25seconds? Despite he was pushed off by Rai who was massively struggling at the time, gave the position back to Rai, and there was no written rule until after the race to wait 2-3 corners for attacking again? if you think today was a joke? historical penalties must be hysterical i guess…

      1. @mysticus, your avatar is brilliant!

        1. Lol, buzz…

    5. The finding from the Ricciardo incident in Australia, and i quote:
      “However, in this case, the Stewards thoroughly reviewed the breach and found that the driver slowed significantly, such that no danger was created, and that the driver proceeded with due care.”

      So Dan created no danger in breaking a rule, gets a 3 grid penalty and 2 penalty points.
      Hamilton created no danger in breaking a rule, Gets nothing????

      F1, I have now turned off. Why have a rule? Rules must be black and white, not grey.

  8. Basically: you can run a red light as long as you do not put anyone in danger.
    What are these rules for if you can just interpret them any way you want at any given moment.
    It’s ridiculous.

  9. Sooo he broke the rules but didn’t get a penalty? This is the FIA fully sitting on the fence and taking the easy way out. Either it was compliant to the rules and therefore no penalty, or it was against the rules and should be an actual penalty, be it a time penalty or a grid penalty. Even just give him a 3 second time penalty so he keeps the win if you want to try and play it like that (which is what I was expecting and would maybe have been okay given it wasn’t in the event notes like at Baku for Kimi’s penalty).
    Point i, the use of the word ‘candidly’ makes it seem as though them saying it was a mistake made the penalty less harsh, at least that’s how it reads to me.
    Point ii, makes sense.
    Also, for point iii, it being a wet track, going across the grass and onto the racing line is surely considered an unsafe manoeuvre? Very easy to spin etc. Even though he didn’t, doesn’t mean it’s very unlikely.

    1. @hugh11, I suspect the problem is that there have been instances in the past where a driver has made a move to enter the pit lane, but then intentionally cut back to the track afterwards, that were not investigated by the FIA. To investigate now for an action that they have let slip in the past would inevitably raise questions of bias or incompetence (since either the incidents in the past were illegal and should have been penalised as well, or the precedent set by those incidents means that Hamilton’s move was acceptable).

      I suspect that they’re letting it slide because, having let such things go in the past, they don’t want people to then retrospectively start questioning why they let other drivers get away with it in the past (i.e. they’re probably looking to cover up their own slack enforcement of that rule more than anything else).

      1. Whether they’ve let it go in the past or not, it’s there in the rules. Things they’ve done in the past shouldn’t affect what they do now. Getting it wrong before doesn’t make it acceptable to get it wrong again.
        Also, drivers have been penalised for it before (4 in the past few years as Keith said in a previous thread), so they’re already inconsistent with it.
        Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure the decision was made with the championship in mind.

        1. Michael Brown (@)
          22nd July 2018, 21:51

          @hugh11 That’s my opinion as well, given that the head steward in Azerbaijan last year said that they didn’t want to influence the championship too much when penalizing Vettel. I can’t expect the same penalty for a championship contender versus someone in the midfield for example.

        2. @hugh11, the thing is, when mentioned that four drivers had been punished, that was out of 22 separate infractions for entering the pit lane over a six year period – so it would seem that the tendency of the FIA has normally been to take a lenient approach towards that particular infraction.

          With regards to “Things they’ve done in the past shouldn’t affect what they do now.”, it seems that, on the contrary, it does matter because those previous penalties, or lack of penalties, have set a precedent in terms of how that regulation is applied or interpreted.

          It may have been made with the championship in mind, or equally it might have been down to the fact that the wider fan base have generally reacted quite badly to post race penalties – we saw the torrents of abuse thrown at the stewards who penalised him in Austin for his off track passing move on Kimi when they imposed a post race penalty, for example.

        3. Errr, @hugh11, haven’t they exactly been consistent with it before? They ONLY penalized when the event notes had made it clear that it was forbidden. In all other cases, they didn’t. Actually, the inconsistency here seems to be the reprimand, when it has been completely without punishment so far.

      2. not knocking your observation, but not enforcing a rule because we’ve been really inconsistent in the past (oops, sorry Charlie!) and so we’ll let it slide (when it might affect the championship) this time.
        man, how is it that the F2, F3/GP3 stewards seem to be able to better deal with this with 30-ish cars; usually within 10 minutes of the infraction.
        this is just pathetic –

    2. May as well have reprimanded him for the shocking hair tbh.

      1. What’s wrong with his hair? It’s part of his culture as it is mine.

        1. Oh are you from Stevenage too?

    3. @hugh11 Well if he had actually clearly broken the rules then this would have been investigated during the race. It was visible for all to see.

      As Keith already nicely investigated, out of 22 cases like this only 4 were penalised. Those were all when explicit instructions existed on the matter. No penalty here is actually perfectly consistent.

      So I guess the stewards already didn’t see this as an incident during the race, but if someone reports it they probably do have an obligation to investigate.

      I wonder more about who was so un-sportsmanship like to wait for this long after the race to complain.

      1. So, when someone thinks he is getting instructions but is actually not, it is fine, but when someone does actually get instructions it’s not fine. That is utterly ridiculous!

        If I’m driving 90 on a street with a limit of 70kph and I know it, I get a ticket, if I actually missed the sign and think I can drive harder, I still get the ticket.

        Hamilton thought the tactics and instructions were to stay out, so he cut off the pitlane and didn’t do it. That is exactly what the stewards are saying, because there was “confusion”. So Hamilton purposely chose to not drive in to the pitlane, drive over (wet) grass and run back on to the track.

        I don’t think it deserves a penalty, to be clear, but the reasons behind it are utter nonsense. It’s because they have to strip him of a win if they didn’t.

        1. RUTH222, you seem to have misunderstood what @patrickl meant with “instructions”. The instructions was not regarding the teams’ radio messages, but regarding the event notes the drivers and teams receive before the race. In all those four penalties, they were told explicitly NOT to do that in the event notes for that race. In all other instances, no penalties has been applied.

      2. I wonder more about who was so un-sportsmanship like to wait for this long after the race to complain.

        Apparently nobody (….which as is not too seldom probably leaves many not being able to help but go “seriously, Charlie?”)

  10. Good call, Keith called it perfectly earlier (referencing previous incidents).

    Shame they couldn’t have looked at this during the race, really hate these investigations way after the race. You wouldn’t get that in any other sport!

    1. Jonathan Parkin
      22nd July 2018, 19:11

      I seem to remember on the 1998 F1 official review video there was an actual time limit that the stewards had to investigate an incident – it was Schumacher overtaking Wurz I remember. Does this time limit still exist

  11. Good call and well thought through.

  12. Good decision.

  13. Seems fair, but I’m not going to insult anyone by pretending I’m not a little biased… Anyway, according to Keith the only times there’s been punishment for this type of infraction was when there had been explicit instructions given in the drivers meeting at particular circuits regarding pit entry/exit (and so far only 4 of twenty-something instances in quite a spell).

  14. So that was why they wanted Valterri to keep position, because it could have ruined the 1-2. If Valterri got past Lewis, who knows what were his chances to finish ahead of Kimi. But with Lewis’ pace at the end, eh… probably the 1-2 was guaranteed.

    1. Depends how early they knew this would be called up the Stewards.

      My bet this was a very late call, so they chances they were thinking about it at that moment were slim.

      I just think they did not want a last lap coming together, play it safe, bag the points. The track was still damp in places. They did not want another Vettel moment.

    2. I think that call was as simple as “we don’t want our two drivers crashing into each other in slippery conditions.” I honestly don’t think Merc strategy is good/quick enough to make decisions like you’re insinuating.

  15. Aside from being thankful for at least not being left with what Spa 2008 eneded up being (and Interlagos 2012 could’ve),let’s appreciate how @keithcollantine and @dieterrencken came up with a pretty brilliant caption for that picture.

  16. Is this the European way of interpreting laws again? Maybe it’s good the americans are going to take over.
    What Hamilton did was clearly braking a rule. So give the penalty for it.

  17. He even gained an enormous advantage because of it.

  18. Right decision.

  19. Best decision he deserved this win more then anybody today

    1. More deserving than his teammate who was ahead the whole race, called into the pits when he didn’t need to be, then ordered not to fight to get the lead back when he was clearly faster?

      1. 1) He wasn’t ahead the whole race
        2) He did need to be called into the pits, did you guys not see what happened in the last race?

        1. When it comes to tyres, a dry hot weather race is not comparable with a drying track.

          It was clear throughout the whole race that tyre wear / deg was not as big a problem as it was at Silverstone. How do you think Hamilton held on so late in this race with such a competitive pace? Obviously his tyres weren’t that bad, and you could see that visibly on the live feed – Brundle even said they were fine

          And Bottas was ahead on strategy all the way up until that point. Hamilton was physically ahead but had yet to pit

          1. Hamilton was physically ahead but had yet to pit

            To be clear, I’m just referring to those few laps after Bottas pitted the first time

    2. You realise that who “deserves a win” is the poorest excuse to penalise or not to penalise right?

  20. GtisBetter (@)
    22nd July 2018, 19:00

    I don’t like rulings like this. Why have rules in the first place? Just say, do what you want when entering or leaving pits as long you don’t endanger anybody. The team admitted a mistake is a migating factor? Since when is incompetence a migating factor? And since when are we less concerned about safety when the safety car is out. I don’t remember the pit exit being suddenly optional during safety cars.

    I don’t think Lewis actually should have gotten a penalty, cause there is no real precedent, but this is just very messy, especially for future reference. Can anybody do it, if he doesn’t endanger anybody, but without the safetycar? What if there is a safetycar, no danger, but the driver changes his mind. Can he just decide last second to cross back to the track? Just say, we haven’t gotten this right at this point, next time anyone who crosses the line gets a penalty.

    1. That’s just it. Just a load of made up justifications and excuses. And as I said above, surely being behind the safety car makes it more dangerous.

      Either enforce the rule or get rid of it

  21. The calm before the serenity.

  22. Now anyone can make a fake pit entry; get back on track; admit it; not endanger somebody and get away with it.
    Absolutely fabulous.

  23. Was this investigation mentioned during the race and if not, why not?

  24. Neil (@neilosjames)
    22nd July 2018, 19:05

    Seems like the right call, thankfully. Would have been very disappointing for such a deserved win to be taken away.

  25. For all the people crying here, have the stewards called for the investigation while race was still ON, MERC would have played it safe by making sure BOT will ease his leg off the throttle to ensure 5 seconds penalty is contained. But to call HAM for investigation way after the race and impose a penalty would have created a huge thunder of useless argument. My opinion.

    1. MERC would have played it safe by making sure BOT will ease his leg off the throttle to ensure 5 seconds penalty is contained

      That would still be a better situation than what we have now. And I don’t think 5 seconds would be appropriate for this kind of infringement.

      1. So taking a driver out from lead and punished with 5 seconds penalty is ok, but taking the grass when no one is behind you is a crime? Stewards should have called for an early investigation to be fair, only then 5 seconds would be appropriate.

  26. I can live with this decision. Kimi didn’t get a penalty for a comparable incident at Nurburgring in 2007, so based on the past precedent(s) it, therefore, was the right decision not to penalize Lewis for a similar incident either.

  27. Yeah, another confirmation that Vettel and Hamilton are not having to follow the same rules as all the other drivers. This sport is becoming more and more a joke, and it’s a huge shame since I used to love it so much.

  28. I don’t care if he is punished or not but I really don’t understand why you have these rules if there are no consequences

    1. Josh (@canadianjosh)
      22nd July 2018, 22:05

      Because the hiarchy of F1 don’t want negative press and taking a win away from Hamilton after the fact would be a black eye on F1. I agree with you 100% but with the fragility of motor sport nowadays, negative press is no good.

  29. That’s HIA for you

  30. So that’s twice this weekend that Hamilton was not penalized for obvious rule breaks… Why even have rules?

    1. He was penalized though.

  31. Defendant: “Your Honour, I was on the phone with my lawyer at the time, he knows about breaking the law better than even I do, but we got confused. So I plead guilty. But because I was lucky not to hurt anybody, and other people have got away with it in the past, please don’t take my ill-gotten gains away from me.”
    Judge: “OK. Go away and be a good boy in the future.”

    1. @paul-a Any good lawyer would point out that in 18 other cases just like this, the defendants also didn’t get a time penalty.

  32. It was an excellent semi condition drive from Lewis.

    I just remember those graphics showing how he was 2 sec faster than vettel 4 sec faster than raikkonen. He shrunk a 13 second gap to the front three in those 3-4 laps to mere 2 seconds. That was something the young drivers should srriously watch onboards of.

    I assume it would have been easy for him to pass kimi and valteri even if they did not pit.

    But what an incredible race! Game on!

    1. Michael Brown (@)
      22nd July 2018, 21:54

      There’s a reason why he’s won nearly every race affected by rain since 2014 (I think he only didn’t win one). Extremely impressive recovery drive combined with wet weather mastery.

  33. In my opinion he should have got a time penalty. Not based on the result (that shouldn’t really matter), but based on the fact that a reprimand means absolutely nothing (in reality). He broke the rule. Clearly there was confusing on the radio, but he broke the rule.

    They should have given a 5 second penalty during the race which they could have easily done and Mercedes would have backed Bottas off sufficiently to ensure Hamilton still won.

    The problem is the stewards inability to make a ruling on this case, they didn’t need to talk to the team or driver to judge the appropriate penalty in this circumstance. Clearly the implications of taking away a race win 3 hrs after the end of the race would have influenced the size of penalty.

    Anyway, just my thoughts. I think Mercedes were due to double stack the pitstop but when they had no tyres ready for Bottas the engineer panicked on the radio.

    1. I am so glad your opinion don’t mean sqwat!

  34. Pains me to say, given what a spectacular comeback it was, he should have gotten a penalty. Pretty clear he broke the rules as a direct result of poor decisions made by him and his team.

    Merc knew a penalty was on the table too, not sure if played on the world feed but on team radio they were pushing him to build a gap for the last few laps. Hamilton even asked if he’d gotten a penalty on the cool down lap.

    I also believe these decisions should be made during the race. Second guessing and beating around the bush hours/days after the race serves no one.

  35. Josh (@canadianjosh)
    22nd July 2018, 22:01

    One question for the Toto order today, if Lewis was in P2 and Bottas had the lead on that safety, is a team order given?

    1. Since he cant be reached for comment, I’ll say, with vettel out of the race, definitely. If vettel is in third, probably would be a situation.

    2. @canadianjosh I’m guessing BOT would’ve pulled away before that becomes a problem, new tyres and all.

  36. That’s wrong. For any driver in the top three teams, a reprimand means absolutely nothing. Even if they rack up three in a season, they would still be right back up the top within only a handful of laps, as Hamilton showed here and at Silverstone. Mercedes argued that confusion led to Hamilton running through the grass as well. From what I can see, that is not a valid excuse for cutting the pit entry. If he’d gone into the pits like he intended to do, he should be penalised like he went in. Therefore, I believe a 5 or 10 second time penalty should have been the right choice by the stewards

  37. Anybody else gets a penalty and the win stripped. FIA playing favorites and it sucks.

  38. I’m still no clearer as to whether this normally gets a penalty unless it is mandated as being worth a penalty for that specific race in the drivers briefing.

    I think they mandate this in Brazil do they not as the pit entry is on the racing line….

    But other races it has not been.

    A lot of the former F1 racers were sure it was not a penalty, (Brundel and Palmer and probably Couthard), and even Ferrari did not protest….

    1. It must normally get a penalty, since one was also issued here. Granted, a reprimand is only going to net a sporting penalty if Hamilton gets another one (I think he’s up to two in the 12-month period and a third penalty would result in a 10-place grid drop), but it is not nothing either.

      It’s enforced everywhere, but usually the investigations of it are in free practise/qualifying, where running over the dividing area isn’t going to add to a driver’s race time. There’s also precedent for ignoring it in confusing situations, notably Kimi Raikkonen at the Nurburgring 2007. That case was more obvious than this one, since Kimi aquaplaned over the dividing area, so apart from some internet complaints nothing more was heard about that one. Nonetheless, it is true that the pit exit line rule is much more consistently enforced than the pit entry one, since the pit entry situation (Interlagos apart) rarely causes any real bother.

      I believe an in-race penalty should have been given here… …and had it been on a consistent basis prior to today, Lewis might not have broken the rule in the first place.

  39. People say that NASCAR doesn’t enforce their rules –

    However, one rule they strictly enforce is abandoning your attempt to go to Pit Lane after crossing the commitment line. It’s sad to see the FIA do this, because its two races in a row that they craft the rules around HAM. This is the garbage that causes people not to watch.

  40. Deserved the win or not is irrelevant .You broke the rules automatic penalty no discussion.These riles are way to open to interpretation.It’s like second grade children debates.
    Secondly i don’t see why anybody would deserve a win.Hamilton’s driving was poor in Q and Seb in the race.Also the team orders for both teams .Poor race .Poor show .

    1. broke the rules automatic penalty

      then what are reprimands for?

  41. Good decision.

  42. I thought Sky’s post-race explanation was really quite good – paraphrasing here: The rule states that if you pass the pit lane entry cone you are NOT allowed to cross the line to enter the pits. There is, however, no rule that states if you enter the pits via the cone you cant EXIT the pit lane before the pit straight.

    You would only then be up for penalty if this specific action was noted in the pre-race briefing. (Which it wasn’t).

    So in this specific instance, the issue wasn’t that it broke the rules, which it didn’t as there wasn’t one. But more a case of was it dangerous, as it was done at slow speed and under the safety car, it wasn’t deemed enough to warrant the time penalty.

    Makes total sense to me, and seems an appropriate outcome. Driver and Team loyalty aside, doing this considerably after the race for podium positions seems in very poor form.

    1. @skettlewood Wasn’t the issue with how Hamilton went into the pit lane? He missed the entrance and went across the line. Which in some cases isn’t allowed, but in this case apparently it sort of was. Seeing how he did get a penalty, but not a big one.

    2. Hamilton missed the corner if he had no intentions to pit, therefore did not complete the entire distance. It’s what Senna once cost him his victory.

Comments are closed.