Insight into the new technology which helps F1 stewards make key decisions
Innovation
Darren Heath
Posted By: James Allen  |  15 Feb 2013   |  10:14 am GMT  |  95 comments

Of all the areas within F1 which arouse controversy and debate, perhaps none is as central as the penalties handed out – or not – by the FIA race stewards.

The stewards are charged with assessing on track misdemeanours and punishing drivers accordingly; Grosjean, Maldonado, Hamilton, Petrov and others have all been on the receiving end of penalties in recent years.

But today the FIA has released some details of how those decisions are reached. An extract from a fascinating article in the FIA’s new AUTO magazine, sheds light on what the Federation calls “cyber stewarding”.

Fans expect the stewards to be able to view video footage of incidents, when making their decisions on which driver is at fault. But the technology at their disposal today goes far further than that, as the FIA’s chair of stewards Gary Connelly explains,

“First of all, we have all the video feeds — the pictures that have gone to air; the vision captured by FOM Communication TV system but which hasn’t been put to air; the closed circuit cameras around the track, and all the onboard material as well,” he says. “We have GPS tracking, which shows where cars are at any given time.

“We also have access to all the team radio transmissions, which are very important as they allow us to know if a team has warned a driver that he’s about to impede another car and whether a driver has ignored that information,” Connelly continued. “Finally, as of this summer, we can now obtain real-time telemetry from the cars. That’s really useful as we can overlay telemetry information from an incident with data from previous laps, so for example, we can tell if a driver has done something like failing to back of under yellow flags.


“Linking all this together you can come up with a complete picture of what’s going on. You have a mass of information that isn’t available to the public or the teams. That’s why decisions are sometimes taken that people have trouble understanding, but they simply don’t have all the information the Stewards do.”

FIA Race Director Charlie Whiting adds that in an effort to ensure consistency of decisions, all the incidents from recent seasons are kept on hard drives so that stewards can refer to them with repeat offenders or refer to precedents when deciding on penalties.

You can read the whole article here – http://www.fia.com/news/cyber-stewarding

*The FIA announced today that McLaren has become the first F1 team to be awarded the FIA Institute’s Environmental Award for the Achievement of Excellence. The award is part of a broader initiative between the FIA and the FIA Institute aimed at evaluating and reducing the environmental impact of motor sport. It is also the highest level attainable within the FIA Institute Sustainability Programme, which helps motor sport stakeholders to measure, improve and be recognised for their environmental performance.

FIA’s work on sustainability in motor sport focuses on these key areas: carbon footprint, human footprint, water footprint, ecosystems quality, natural resources and human health. This assessment will form the basis of the FIA’s environmental strategy across all areas of motor sport.

technical innovation from tata COMMUNICATIONS
Previous
Next
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
95 Comments
  1. Rob says:

    I wonder how safe it is for them to have such telemetry information? What happens when one of the personal leaks telemetry from Team A’s car, to Team B? Even old information from a previous race could be valuable to other teams.

    1. James Allen says:

      You have to have Chinese walls to stop that of course. I’ve never heard of anything like that happening.

      1. Kay says:

        Chinese wall? You mean the Great Wall of China, James?

      2. FastGuy says:

        Thx James…learn something new every day.

    2. KGBVD says:

      Leaking telemetry? Top teams have the resources to intercept, decode and read telemetry easily as its sent from any one car back to the pit wall.

      Personal leaks are SOOO 1990s…

      1. Monktonnik says:

        Tell,that to Ferrari and Mclaren

    3. Gwion Daniel says:

      All you need for a good telemetry leak this year is Lewis Hamilton on your team.

      1. Cos says:

        yes because everyone else in F1 be they drivers, team management or anyone else are angelic!!

  2. wouldn’t it clear up some misunderstandings if the FIA, when announcing a decision, also backed this up with some evidence as to how they arrived at the decision. considering that penalties are not all that prevalent it should give some better understanding of the process.

    1. Ian says:

      Absolutely agree. I’ve thought this for years.

      1. Wayne says:

        I thoguht they already did this, to an extent? What they will not be able to explain away, of course, is the commercial/political influence in their decision-making.

        Almost without fail, whenever a championship leading car has a comming together with a midfielder or back-marker, is it the driver who is not part fo the WDC race that is penalised. This is purely to avoid ‘ruining’ the show, but it is not sporting nor is it fair.

        Yes backmarkers have to get out the the way when flagged to do so, but they cannot simply vahish for a few seconds – if a lead driver cannot wait until it is safe to pass without incident then they should reap the punishment if they cause a collision rather than get away free purely because the viewing public do not want to see the WDC affected.

    2. Phil J says:

      I quite agree. I think it is much more important to have transparency of the decision making process than a little bit more information to make the decision. Decisions made under public scrutiny are much more likely to be fair and consistent.
      The FIA should publish full reasoning along with the data used to make the decision for all incidents investigared whether a penalty was issued or not. Knowing which incidents have been considered would be interesting in itself.

    3. Andrew says:

      To be fair, I can’t remember many terrible steward decisions last year, Grosjean deserved what he got, so did Maldonado.

      Don’t the stewards usually release a statement with details on what rule was broken by which driver?

      1. Andrew Carter says:

        Yes, usually “causing an avoidable collision” and nothing else, which doesn’t remotely explain how they came to the decision.

        Quite often I agree with the stewards, but there’s still far too many times when they seem to get it completely wrong. It would be nice to have complete transparancy on these decisions, but the FIA has promesed that several times in the past and competely failed to follow it up.

      2. All revved-up says:

        I don’t understand why Schumacher wasn’t penalised for driving Baricello, Button, etc off the track.

        Stewards should explain.

      3. Rach says:

        He was penalised against Barrichello!! Who would be a steward, who even though they carried out actions still end up getting criticised even though they have acted.

        The fact you isolate Schumacher shows how difficult a job a steward has because people with grudges forget the facts.

      4. Paul says:

        The only baffling stewards decision this year I recall was in GP3 when Daly got penalised for the huge shunt in Monaco, yet Suranovich in front didn’t have a rear wing for 2/3 laps and was driving terribly to defend position.

    4. J. Fred Muggs says:

      The FIA is of French origin.

      There is an inherent level of arrogance in the FIA, as with many organizations in France, which tends to preclude any desire on the part of those organizations to “explain” themselves relative to decisions they make. The “peasants” who follow sporting events are simply “supposed to” blindly accept the decisions made by sporting bodies based in France.

      If you are looking for fairness and objectivity from the FIA or similar
      bodies you are naive in the extreme. The real world works in a different way. Recall how Balestre exercised his power to bring about a decision in Prost’s favor for a good example. This was highlighted in the recent film “Senna”.

      1. Brace says:

        Remember how Senna wasn’t penalized nor demonized for causing a huge incident the following year in order to win a title.

        I still don’t understand how that championship stood.

        Consequences of Balestre’s favor to Prost the year before weren’t any smaller, but what Prost did was far more benign.

        For example, robbing a bank and taking the same amount of money in two different scenarios, won’t warrant the same punishment if on one occasion you never fired a single bullet or hit someone, while on the other occasion you killed a few guards.

        Think about it.

      2. Alex W says:

        “Consequences of Balestre’s favor to Prost the year before weren’t any smaller” Not true, even if he didn’t intervene and Senna won the race, Prost still would have won the WDC, but Senna fans never mention that!

      3. Tim says:

        Wow! Quite a generalisation, dismissing an entire nation as arrogant due to the actions/decisions of one or two officials.
        I agree that some of the decisions the FIA make do appear, at times, to be biased but generally it’s because they don’t make the decision I want. If you watch a football or rugby match the referee often makes calls which seem outrageous – but they are only outrageous because it’s not ‘your’ team that benefits. No doubt there are many thousands of Prost fans who think JMB did a fine job.
        It’s very difficult to expect objectivity in decision making when the matter being judged is often subjective – it’s more often trying to judge the difference between six and two threes rather than who crossed the line first.

    5. iceman says:

      I think they announced a couple of years ago that they were going to do that, but then it seems they forgot about it.

  3. goferet says:

    Okay, all these is well and good but it baffles the mind why stewards decide to investigate some incidents after the race ~ some of which happen very early into the Grand Prix.

    Further more, why does Charlie Whiting’s opinion vary from that of the stewards as was famously displayed at the Belgian GP 2008.

    On a positive note, am happy for I saw an improvement in the stewarding in 2012 for on a whole, drivers weren’t being punished for racing hard and for minor infractions, drivers were given a reprimand instead of a full penalty.

    Hoping for more of the same.

    1. Dan says:

      I think this is a great point.

      Most fans are aware of the plethora of information available to the stewards when deciding whether to issue a penatly or not.

      However, a lot of the time it’s hard to work out the thought processes involved in a particular descision. Perhaps the “innovation” fans would most like to see is simple communication of this information following a penalty or a “no further action taken”.

    2. Random 79 says:

      I think a lot of times (but not all the time) when stewards decide to investigate after the race it’s either for incidents that may take too long to investigate at the time, or for incidents where two or more drivers have taken each other out. In that case any penalties given will not matter at the time anyway – i.e. they don’t have to give out a grid drop for the next race right there, so why waste the time?.

      As for Charlie, I suppose you’d have to ask him why he might sometimes disagree with them. I get the feeling he can veto any decision by the stewards, but I’m far from 100% sure about that – it would be great if you could clear that up for us James.

      On the whole I agree with you goferet – it did seem to be better last year :)

  4. Baghetti says:

    Good to learn that thanks to improved technology the stewards are able to take decisions with a complete picture of what has been going on, but how about sharing the relevant parts of that picture with the public through a substantiated motivation of their decisions? Surely with all of the information in their hands they can come up with something more than ‘drive-through penalty for causing collision’, maybe not on the tv-screen but through a jointly issued written statement?

  5. goferet says:

    Meanwhile, it appears it pays to be a bad boy in F1.

    I mean could there be a direct correlation between the naughty lads and success in F1 i.e. The more a driver finds himself in the headmaster’s office, the more he’s likely to succeed >>> for not only does it give the team’s sponsors the much needed airtime but also it could be a sign of a raw talent that just needs polishing e.g. the younger Schumi, the younger Lewis, the younger Senna, the pre-Newey Vettel, Grosjean, Maldonado and Kobayshi etc

    1. Random 79 says:

      Maybe the more he he succeeds the more he gets noticed ;)

      Seriously though, the guys who succeed the most tend to be the guys who push the boundaries the most (the car, the rules, their own skill etc…), so it’s not so surprising when they cross those boundaries from time to time.

      But you’re right; when they drivers to silly things they do tend to end up getting big airtime. It has occurred to me from time to time if Karthikeyan might (and I do mean *might*) have been told to get in the way just a little in order for HRT to get a couple more seconds of airtime. Just a thought ;)

      1. Anne says:

        No, because small teams like HRT or Marussia don´t get T.V. rights money like all the other teams. So why bother to tell a driver to do something if there is no money involved for the team? Now if the driver on his own wants to play a big role and do something to earn headlines in newspapers. Well that´s possible. But that´s the driver own responsibility

      2. Random 79 says:

        Absolutely right, they don’t get money for TV rights, but they do get money from sponsors who like to be on TV – so even if I’m wrong (which probably and hopefully am) it’s still a theory.

        It wouldn’t be the first time a driver was told to do something dodgy – but you’re right, in the end it would be their responsibility.

        As I said, it was just a thought :)

      3. Wade Parmino says:

        I thought all teams get a slice of the pie; further to the back the slices are increasingly smaller but they still get one.

        Also, seperate from the F1 pie, some sponsors may pay teams additional money to have their livery broadcast with more air-time. Who knows? It is not impossible.

      4. Anne says:

        Yes but if the sponsor ask the team to do something to get more T.V. the team is going to ask the sponsor for more money. I´m not so sure a sponsor in a small team will do that only to get 2 more seconds on T.V. Everything is possible but there is also common sense behind a move like that. It´s risky, it may backfire in some way

      5. goferet says:

        @ Random 97

        Hmm… I don’t think so.

        You see some drivers especially the pay ones are really not gifted so what may look like Narain causing an incident to get attention could just simply be Narain being Narain.

        Besides it’s not like sponsors were falling over themselves to sign up with HRT

      6. Random 79 says:

        Two for two :)

  6. madmax says:

    After the incidents in Canada 2011 with Button & Hamilton & Alonso the FIA released detailed accounts at why they came to their conclusions.

    Why can’t they do this after every incident instead of just say we have far more data than you so we don’t need to explain anything!

    Also the driver steward is the biggest joke ever in F1 if they want to achieve consistency.

    Tom Kristensen, 8 time Le-mans winner but never raced a F1 car and has no proper stewarding background in F1 was on the steward panel at Barcelona.

    How are the FIA supposed to be taken seriously when they make decisions like this that are just designed as a publicity stunt.

    1. Andrew says:

      “Tom Kristensen, 8 time Le-mans winner but never raced a F1 car and has no proper stewarding background in F1.”

      That’s still a hell of a lot more racing experience than any normal steward would ever have had. You don’t need to have been an F1 driver to have a race driver’s perspective.

      1. Adriano says:

        +1
        I think most would agree introducing driver stewards has been a massive success.

      2. AuraF1 says:

        Given how often the rules are changed, even F1 drivers from the past would struggle to be an absolute master of every rule off hand. I agree that offering a ‘perspective’ of how and why a driver did what he did seems to have given the Stewards a bit more accountability.

        It also seems to help that the drivers are generally well known and can get follow-up questions on tv in future.

      3. JeremySmith says:

        I agree completly, also I would like to add that I do not think that the stewards have to explain why or how they came to a desision regarding an incident..

      4. madmax says:

        It is a lot more racing than a normal steward would have but I assume a normal steward has in depth training and doesn’t just waltz in on a weekend and give his opinion.

        If you are going to get a driver to give his thoughts on incidents then he should have raced F1 cars as what you can do and can’t do in a F1 car is different than other categories.

      5. Joel says:

        I feel that driver stewards are more polarising than a non-driver stewards. May be they are so into the sport that they can’t be impartial…

    2. Neal says:

      Yeah, what is an 8 time le-mans winner going to know about racing?

      Sheesh.

      1. madmax says:

        an F1 car?

        Sheesh.

      2. Rudy says:

        Wow, seriously? Both are top level forms of motorsports. Le Mans-type cars are run at night with just their headlamps and take into account they race against cars with huge performance differentials. So, tell me if Tom Kristensen doesn’t know something about racing and dealing with overtaking and racing incidents.

      3. madmax says:

        Take the example of Hulkenberg hitting Hamilton in Brazil in the last race.

        Someone who has never raced a F1 car can’t give an opinion on the difficultly or lack of faced by driving a F1 car in tricky half wet conditions.

        They can’t give an opinion on Hulkenberg’s reasoning of the Caterham’s actions contributing. They don’t have sufficient knowledge of the level of grip on line or of line, level of sight, deceleration etc.

        Obviously a normal steward doesn’t know these things but he isn’t brought in just to give an opinion on them.

      4. Kay says:

        So would you say Luca Badoer makes a better steward than Tom Kristensen? Luca has F1 experience!

        Sheesh!

      5. madmax says:

        Luca Badoer was a test driver for Ferrari for 12 years with most of them years when a driver could actually test on the track.

        He had something like 50 grands prix under his belt so he would be infinitely more qualified than Kristenson to give an F1 driver’s perspective on an incident.

        When he filled in for Massa he was 37 and hadn’t raced in F1 in 10 years but I suppose that doesn’t stop people taking cheap shots at him.

  7. CarlH says:

    That’s a great picture of the control room above.

    I think I can just about make out the beginnings of the massive fire which obviously caused them all to evacuate at the start of the Brazilian GP last year. That can be the only reason they didn’t give Vettel a penalty for crashing into Bruno Senna.

    I hope they all got out ok. My heart goes out to them….

    1. goferet says:

      @ CarlH

      Regards the Vettel-Senna incident at Interlagos.

      Perhaps the stewards were of the view Vettel was partly to blame for the collision and seeing as he had ended up at the back of the snake, there was no need to go into overkill mode by dishing out a penalty.

      1. Random 79 says:

        +1

        Whatever they did on the day they would have ended up getting slammed for it.

      2. Andrew M says:

        If that’s what they decided that that’s terrible stewarding. The rules should be the same for everyone, regardless of what the outcome for the driver causing the incident.

  8. Anne says:

    How all this technology help FIA to avoid that teams could come with their own “interpretation of the rules”? I´m not talking about only any given race but also engine maps or flex wings

  9. Mike says:

    What I find rather strange is how often we hear things like:

    “[We] have a mass of information that isn’t available to the public or the teams. That’s why decisions are sometimes taken that people have trouble understanding, but they simply don’t have all the information the Stewards do.”

    Well then, make as much of the information available to the public as you can. It’s interesting for us and helps us understand the sport better. We would like to know the basic facts of the incident and the thought process that was applied to arrive at the decision to penalise or otherwise. It can’t be that hard.

    1. AuraF1 says:

      It would be nice if they released some of these ‘unseen’ footage shots after the fact to back up their decisions. As you say it would certainly help explain to fans and other teams what really happened and why it was called.

      I can only assume it’s not done due to the fear that teams might start getting more analysts and lawyers involved and constantly making more appeals and trying to override old decisions.

      1. James Allen says:

        An online release would be ideal. Problem is – decisions are FIA, but all video evidence is FOM property!

      2. Justin says:

        If the FIA were to release a video along the lines of the ones that Brendan Shanahan does for the NHL when he levies a suspension that would be ideal.

        example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhCRlD5v6y4

      3. Stephen Taylor says:

        Why don’t the Fia let fans decide in an online vote?

      4. Peter says:

        Stephen Taylor, if I understand you correctly you’re suggesting that fans become some kind of democratic gestalt steward. You’re surely joking. All F1 fans would need to be totally impartial, which is simply not the case. For example;

        Would a fan honestly vote against “his driver?” Not likely. Does anyone want to see #VoteForMyDriver campaigns trending on Twitter?

        Would a fan, in an incident not involving “his driver,” vote against “driver 1″ or “driver 2″ when “his driver” has a championship points deficit to make up? Depends which would benefit “his driver” more.

        Would a fan, feeling bitter about a sour result that went against “his driver” be able to be impartial in the face of his urge to “restore the rightful balance?” I don’t think I’d trust them.

        You just have to look at this site to know certain drivers have very vocal apologists and detractors which can twist and contort logic to fit their selfish feelings and agendas. The fans, the haters, the trolls, the conspiracy theorists. Just look how many fans blur the line between fan and team by using “we” to describe the team they “support.” Can they be impartial?

        My whole argument hinges on one point, and it is surprisingly not the question is wether impartiality is important because, without question, impartiality is vital.

        It is wether F1 is fundamentally a (spectator) sport or just show business.

      5. Kris Grzegorczyk says:

        This will be interesting to follow…

        http://mashable.com/2013/02/14/nba-stats-data/

        NBA and SAP making a whole load of ‘big’ data available to fans. Wonder if any other sports, and, in particular, F1 would consider this. Just think how much more engaged fans would feel knowing the governing body is doing everything it can to increase involvement and accessibility to insight…. Rather than keeping it hoarded away.

  10. aveli says:

    armed with so much information, the stewards should have been able to make fairer decisions. i’m surprise they couldn’t avoid making new rules to be applied to passed incidents. ie hamilton raikkonen spa 2008.

  11. Andrew says:

    I think first lap incidents are generally treated a bit more leniently.

    Unless you are Grosjean and do it all the time.

  12. Giles Witchell says:

    It’s all very well stewards having such resources to hand but they need to act promptly so not destroying a drivers race. Sometimes it can take a number of laps for decisions to be made which is far too late.

  13. Alexyoong says:

    Isn’t this fundamentally a sport for the fans’ entertainment? Sure, it’s also a big business, but the fans’ interest comes first, without that there would be no business.

    So why are we not given more of this information? If, for example, there are better views of incidents not aired live, why don’t we see it?

  14. Wade Parmino says:

    Well then, with all the information available to them, there is no justification for handing out delayed penalties post race. All penalties should be awarded within 10 minutes of the occurance of the incident. There is enough of them viewing all that information for an efficient and timely ruling to be expected. Especially with instances where a penalty will affect the result of the current race.

    Considering all these resources the stewards have access to, it is apalling how the podium ceremony was allowed to take place in Germany last year before a ruling on Vettel’s illegal overtake had been passed. More than enough time was available for a judgement to be made. Even if the incident in question had happened on the final lap! (which it did not).

    1. Anne says:

      Because by rule all the incidents that take place with 5 laps or less remening are all investigated after the race.

      1. Kay says:

        Then this rule needs changing :)

  15. Elie says:

    Like a few have said, if the information forming the basis of the decision is transparent and shared with the fans then it will add an element of intersection to the ” show”. However I can only hope that too much of this information does not stall the decision on the day. Where the tough calls need to be made so that a driver does not get dis/advantaged on the day becomes now a decision made by trial on video and digital evidence two days later. This is very likely if you too have too much information to sift through and not enough people or time to do so during the race.

    James am I right in saying the stewards room just got a whole lot bigger?

    1. James Allen says:

      No the photo is of Race Control

      1. Elie says:

        Sorry I meant race control – will it grow in head count due to the increased information to be processed and analysed. Cheers

  16. Robert N says:

    James,

    going back to flag-gate at the end of last year. Would the control room have known that Vettel did not pass under yellows (a) instantly, (b) the lap after, (c) much later but still before the end of the race or (d) only after the race?

    1. James Allen says:

      If he had passed a yellow the race control would have received an alert from the chief marshal at the post in question

  17. Patrick says:

    Is there not a famous poem about F1 stewards and their decisions that begins like this

    “earth has not anything to show more fair”

  18. This line form the article is worth picking up: “Technology also helps to ensure the consistency of decisions”. Not wanting to appear a pedant, but… this statement is flawed. It isn’t the technology that is helping to ensure consistency, technology is really providing granularity in the data the FIA captures. Technology is obviously part of the solution; it must be clear, real consistency comes from the manner in which the gathered information is interpreted. As other readers mention, more feedback on this element of the process is required.

  19. Oli says:

    Correct me if im wrong but don’t the FIA already publish an reason to why they have giving a penalty?

    Im sure I have seen on TV before Ted Kravits standing outside race control & showing a notice board with the stewards decision on it? Also im sure they must issue the teams with a more detailed reason?
    Just cause they don’t show the full reason & explanation on screen doesn’t mean they don’t give one.

    1. Kay says:

      The problem is the audience don’t get to see the full reason. That notice board is only freely accessible to the teams, which is why the audience have a hard time in understanding some controversial decisions.

  20. Random 79 says:

    Great article again James – keep it up! :)

  21. Quade says:

    No amount of technology can solve the problem of politics. Like everything else in life, its politics that governs the ultimate interpretation of technological evidence.
    It is politics that ensures that both team and driver are spoken to for both their perspective and a veneer of fairness.

    Put simply, an uninteresting backmarking plodder would more easily be punished than would an Alonso, Lewis, Kimi or Vettel.

    1. Tim says:

      That’s a very good point. The obvious competition is on the race track and this is governed by the technical and sporting regulations. But the teams also compete just as keenly off the track to try and influence the rules (in their favour).That part of the competition is unregulated and I suspect those with the deepest pockets have the loudest voice.

  22. Andrew C says:

    Great article. I’ve a question though – do they have translators in there too since Ferrari seem to only converse in Italian on the radio these days?

    1. Random 79 says:

      Even if they don’t I guarantee you at least some of the other teams will.

    2. Kay says:

      I think it was from Brazilian GP or Abu Dhabi GP onwards, FIA began showing translations on screen of what Ferrari personnel conversed over the radio with Alonso.

    3. Tim says:

      I probably dreamt this, but I thought the stewards panel was at least partly made up from local officials. This was mooted as part of the problem of achieving consistency. In any event, to get back to the point, I cannot imagine they are all english and the problem of understanding another language is therefore not an issue.

  23. Rene says:

    The one thing that I really [mod - dislike] about F1 is when the stewards apply time penalties after a race. I find it rediculous that it takes these people so long to make decisions. Imagine a football match having a goal removed after the game! To apply time penalties after a race is a farce – too many variables can not be taken into account (i.e. 20seconds after a safety car may drop someone 10places, while before it would only have cost them one place). It seems like they are bragging about all of the technology availible to them to ‘scientifically evaluate’ each incident. This is SPORT, people. don’t take yourselves so seriously – you are not a jury. Just make a reasonable call. It will be fine in most cases. It feels like you have wasted your time when these ‘professionals’ are too incompetent to make a judgement call and resort to fiddling with the results after the fact! Illegal cars excluded, of course.

  24. Mohammed Al-Momen says:

    It would be a good idea when announcing a decision, that after the race at least some of the data they have is released to let people better understand how they had come to that decision.

  25. Jake says:

    Sorry James different topic but quite interesting.
    Mercedes have posted some nice pictures of their driver’s helmets on their website.
    They are very different, pop over and have a look.

  26. Kay says:

    “Linking all this together you can come up with a complete picture of what’s going on. You have a mass of information that isn’t available to the public or the teams. That’s why decisions are sometimes taken that people have trouble understanding, but they simply don’t have all the information the Stewards do.”

    So maybe it’d be good if the FIA release these information along with the penalties when it’s shown on the TV feeds?

  27. Arkimsa says:

    What would help is the Stewards producing a report on how they arrived at their decisions…or non-decisions after every race.Mentioning all the footages and other sources they used.

  28. Kris Grzegorczyk says:

    Great read.

    I’d love it for the FIA to, every now and again, publish case studies of how this system was applied for a particularly controversial or discussed race incident. From a fan-engagement perspective, it would be brilliant to document the process that took place when a key decision was being made (say Spa 2008, MS on Rubens at Hungary in 2010 or Vettel/Alonso at Monza in 2012). The potential to keep F1 in the media and to encourage increased fan activity and discussion would be huge. Good idea for a JAF1 and FIA hookup piece?

    It’s not relevant, but I think this is the first instance I’ve seen of the term ‘far further’ ever being used

  29. Beta Wing says:

    The article itself is encouraging. If there is one area, where F1 is weak, it must be stewarding. It is even better to see people asking to make the evidence public, how stewards reached their decisions. How can we believe without the evidence, that the bickerings in Monza(both, 2012 and 2011) really were investigated, not solved by flipping a coin?

    The stewards need technology to help them out a little. The self regulation does not work these days, when it is so easy to cut corners and safe to drive into other cars and later blame everyone else for that.

    There seems to be great opposition to investigating cases after the race. It might be just my little trick, but when following a competition, I want to know who is the best, not the luckiest getting away with fraud. Let them investigate, even if it takes 10 years, I’m fine with that, as long as it gives more realistic results. It is not a tragedy if somebody, due to unclear results, is not allowed to go to the podium for spraying champagne. Fake glory, no thanks.

  30. Sebee says:

    I just read this piece, I am some of you have as well. This while V6 fight by Bernie is interesting. As is the battery transportation issues. If Bernie says I won’t transport these batteries…what then?

    Why do I have a feeling that we will see V8s on the grid in 2014? Mercedes – won’t be happy.

    http://www.planetf1.com/editorial/8505034/Formula-One-s-Uncertain-Future

    1. hero_was_senna says:

      Could F1 allow V8′s and V6′s to race alongside one another like the V10′s and V8′s did a few seasons past.
      Obviously there would be restrictions on the V8′s until all teams were running the new spec.

      Also, I remember a BMW mechanic being electrocuted during a test session at Jerez with the new KERS system back in 2008, which caused all teams to invest in substantial safety wear for the mechanics.

      All new technology has it’s dangers, but I would imagine if batteries can’t be transported by air, they would source suppliers in each relevant country.

      1. Sebee says:

        What if circuits can’t get fire insurance because of this? It is not just planes that are an issue. But as an insurer I would cover a potential fire in an FOM plane.

        How will they source batteries in China? Oh right. But eventually this would become too expensive even for F1. How many sets of batteries would each team need each weekend at each GP?

  31. Yak says:

    The thing that bugs me is is consistency, and not necessarily in terms of incidents/collisions. In those cases, I generally don’t find and disagreement with the stewards’ decisions.

    But stuff like… when the rule is you have to keep two wheels inside the white lines, and everyone’s just doing whatever they want like at Hockenheim last year, it’s a bit of a farce. And then Vettel gets done for his overtake on Button. I agree he should have been done for it, but right from FP1 people should have been given warnings for running wide and penalties for doing it consistently.

    Massa at Singapore too cut quite a few corners, four wheels straight over the kerb, but nothing was done about it.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

JA ON F1 In association with...
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Download the chequered flag podcast today
MTS
Industry-Leading Testing and Sensing Solutions
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer