Did Hamilton cause the Webber - Vettel crash?

[Tom]

Does anyone get the impression that the stewarts are trying to bring the sport into less dissrespute by NOT punishing a team the governing body have been acussed of going to great lengths to impead?

[checkered]

Does anyone get the impression that the stewarts are trying to bring the sport into less dissrespute by NOT punishing a team the governing body have been acussed of going to great lengths to impead?

The team bosses don't

seem to have quite such a dramatic view, at least from what can be made of Friday's press conference. Official F1 website, Friday press conference link. It's worth a read for many other reasons than this issue (and note that this was before the stewards re-heard Hamilton, Vettel and Webber). First off, it's not easy to appreciate just what the drivers encountered in the weather of Fuji's race day, even behind the safety car:

I am well aware there were visibility problems behind the Safety Car. Our drivers were calling in about that but to take a positive note away, I think we should understand that what we were looking at were superhumans in racing cars, because the conditions were unbelievable. I think if you were riding as a passenger, you’d opt out within a few seconds of getting going.

It was apparent to everyone it was appalling conditions. There was communication between Charlie (Whiting) and some of the teams, certainly our team. Our drivers were very concerned about visibility more than anything else and of course there were incidents, some of which may or may not be ongoing, but I think the reality is we should look at that race and say that we were fortunate no driver was hurt. It was a race in probably the worst conditions and all drivers tried to do the very best they could in those difficult circumstances.

Some team bosses seem to appreciate that the stewards' most consistent, and perhaps their most defendable, line is having no "line" at all, but appreciating the individual nature of events:

Well, you drew a comparison between Formula One and cycling. Certainly we had quite some incidents or occurrences – however you might call it – in Formula One this year of various kinds, but all of them were dealing with individual cases whereas, on the other hand, at least as I see it, cycling has left the ground of sport and that is a very different thing. It will be necessary therefore to find the way back to what sport is about, which is fair competition and healthy competition, so I don’t see the parallels between these two situations.

Kovalainen was interviewed about what happened behind the safety car at Japan at length by Autosport. Q & A with Kovalainen on the Fuji SC row, link. He clearly finds Hamilton's actions inappropriate in various ways, but at the same time states that by his own actions at least he felt safe. Webber and Vettel were at liberty to act the same.

I hope, but cannot know, whether the stewards have reviewed this thoroughly. Telemetry and pit wall radio should tell a whole lot. Hamilton risked a lot, especially in the situation where his main rival was definitely out of points. This outcome from the stewards' review of the situation may have a lot to do with the conditions. They don't want to draw any more attention to whether it was right to race in that rain at all.

Before the Japan GP I hoped that F1 would be spared any more controversy for the season. Yet I was disappointed. But the issue can't be simplified to what happens with a driver or between a few drivers. In a way, F1 is too grand for its own good, being human doesn't seem to feature highly in the equation anymore. Yet it's all a human construction. There's some irony in that.

[captainmorgan]

This is getting a little sick, to be honest. As much as I'd like to disrespect Hamilton for his driving at Fuji(how great of a victory is it really in the rain if the victor was never in the spray?) both in race and behind the safety car, his safety-car-driving is really a non issue if you actually look at what other drivers have done in the past. Alonso brake checked the entire line in 2006(I forget which race), and Schumacher drove past and earned himself a penalty. In that situation the race leader Alonso's blame was barely questioned. Furthermore, Hamilton at Fuji could easily be explained by brake-warming or tire-warming, which makes it harder to doubt his innocence.

So basically I have to conclude that what myself and many others in these threads have been trying to do in terms of persuading onto others a negative view of Hamilton, is really just an expression of disappointment that he will most likely win the championship. All these threads essentially boil down to does-he-deserve-it or does-he-NOT-deserve-it. And unfortunately for me and the rest of the Hamilton-bashers out there, by any measure that matters or at least convinces most, he does deserve it. Alonso simply took too many risks, went to the wrong team, and the FIA determined half-assedly that somehow the drivers are not part of the team and so shouldn't be penalized if the team benefits from espionage. Points makes it official, as far as most people are concerned.

On the other hand, the pro-Hamilton bias is just as sickening. Reading about his infallibility on media sites like grandprix.com, from British commentators, and even here is usually an exercise in controlling the urge to vomit. You have to ask yourself, if Hamilton hypothetically really was just as bad as people claim, if he actually is as manipulative as he claims Alonso is, would you still support him? I'm all for a British world champion, but does Britain really have to make it solely a matter of national pride every time the possibility comes along? Remember Button? How quickly did people turn on him, just because he didn't take wins in a substandard car. As far as I'm concerned, I think if the Honda becomes driveable, he'll be the one to reckon with next year, and I think it's unbelievable that I'd be alone on this one.

[FLC]

Can anyone here clarify exactly what's the stewards authority in cases like this? What exactly were they appointed to rule on? Hamilton's behavior? Vettel's? Both? How were they able to mitigate Vettel's punishment without proving that Hamilton was even partially at fault or anyone/anything else for that matter? Isn't that like undermining the decision of the stewards of the Japanese race? Why didn't it go to the CoA, like Liuzzi's case? And is the fact that there were new evidence available made the difference?

Sorry about all the questions, hope someone can answer. Rob W maybe? Scarbs?

[axle]

How were they able to mitigate Vettel's punishment without proving that Hamilton was even partially at fault or anyone/anything else for that matter? Isn't that like undermining the decision of the stewards of the Japanese race?

If I may add my 2p on this one point. I think the stewards saw it from a wholly new angle (literally thanks to the vid) and decided there was no case to answer by any driver. I think the stewards are to be commended for looking at the new footage and other available data and if necessary changing a previous decision. As the stewards are always the same they are only changing their own minds not undermining others.

[FLC]

I'm pretty sure there is only one permanent steward.

[axle]

I'm pretty sure there is only one permanent steward.

Ahh I thought there was 3...someone help!

[bizadfar]

This is getting a little sick, to be honest. As much as I'd like to disrespect Hamilton for his driving at Fuji(how great of a victory is it really in the rain if the victor was never in the spray?) both in race and behind the safety car, his safety-car-driving is really a non issue if you actually look at what other drivers have done in the past. Alonso brake checked the entire line in 2006(I forget which race), and Schumacher drove past and earned himself a penalty. In that situation the race leader Alonso's blame was barely questioned. Furthermore, Hamilton at Fuji could easily be explained by brake-warming or tire-warming, which makes it harder to doubt his innocence.

Have to correct you here. It was 2006 Hungary FP session. And Schumacher was just as dumb to not concede. But it was really questionable by the FIA how they gave the same penalties to both drivers.... Anyway do you remember the qualifying session of that race? Schumacher got 1 or 2 (forgot) seconds added for all qual sessions and he still impressed.

I think you are more referring to 2006 Alonso restarts when the SC lights are out and the restart coming at next s/f This wasnt the case in Fuji it was still full SC. But yes a good example of Alonso playing chicken was in Silverstone when in 2006, when he did the stop start game for the last 3 corners. No one passed him.


By the way, guys watch the ONBOARD of Vettel during that. You could see his head moving around watching, accerlerating slowing. When he saw Hamilton on the right (head still turned). Webber was right in front. Guess what he did the second before he crashed? He started to accelerate again. Makes it even more laughable and dopey for more! Sorry LOL!!!!

[Spencifer_Murphy]

FLC & Axle:

There are three stewards at each race, of which only one is permant. I can't remember his name, its something like Tony Scott-Andrews.

This is getting a little sick, to be honest. As much as I'd like to disrespect Hamilton for his driving at Fuji(how great of a victory is it really in the rain if the victor was never in the spray?) both in race and behind the safety car, his safety-car-driving is really a non issue if you actually look at what other drivers have done in the past. Alonso brake checked the entire line in 2006(I forget which race), and Schumacher drove past and earned himself a penalty. In that situation the race leader Alonso's blame was barely questioned. Furthermore, Hamilton at Fuji could easily be explained by brake-warming or tire-warming, which makes it harder to doubt his innocence.

Totally agree with most of that, I'll agree that Lewis did not do a great job behind the safety car but it was by no means a disgusting display as some would have you believe, I've seen FAR worse behaviour behind the safety car.

The only point I disagree with a little was the "(How great is a win if the victor wasn't ever in the spray?)" comment. I think very, seeing as a race is won over the course of a whole weekend, Lewis did a great job to put it on pole and as such put one had on the trophy. Schumi is a perfect example of how if you put the effort in on Friday and Saturday you'll reap rewards on Sunday. Also we must remember that driving in the spray is not the only difficulty facing a driver in the wet. After the race at Fuji were as Jenson Button puts it (You're aquaplanning for half the straight and doing 150MPH with no control over the car.) ANYBODY who finished that race had a GREAT drive. All of that said I agree that Lewis was not for me driver of the day at Fuji - Kimi was. Lewis though, for me, was driver of the weekend and fully deserved his win.

Does anyone get the impression that the stewarts are trying to bring the sport into less dissrespute by NOT punishing a team the governing body have been acussed of going to great lengths to impead?

I do agree with Tom to an extent also. I mean to be honest I dont think ANY driver deserved a penalty (altho maybe Webber for mouthing off AGAIN where everybody else seems to be able to control their tounge a little lol - joke cmment btw, I wuddnt expect him to really be punished). I was relieved to see that in the end nobody was punished as too often this year the governing body has interveened where is was not nessecary. A perfect example is Hungary, the punishment for events there had nothing to do with the FIA, and everything to do with Mclaren, it was an internal issuse and should have been delt with as such. Its not like it was team orders in an effort to fix a race result - a la Austria 2001 or '02).