Hamilton, Schumacher, and the FIA stewards

A ferocious battle between Lewis Hamilton and Michael Schumacher during the Italian Grand Prix provided plenty of excitement, but also highlighted some areas of Formula One officialdom that could be significantly improved. Lewis and Michael are arguably the two most controversial drivers in F1, so it’s somewhat fitting they should both be involved in this most recent debate about driving standards.

Hamilton versus Schumacher

At the restart of the Italian Grand Prix on lap four, Michael Schumacher used the superior top speed of his Mercedes to draft past Lewis Hamilton on the run towards the first Rettifilio chicane. It eventually took Lewis 32 minutes to get the position back after fighting hard with Michael who, despite his straight-line advantage, had a distinctly slower car. Schumacher’s defence was incredibly robust and the German was even asked by the Mercedes Team Principal, Ross Brawn, to provide Hamilton with more racing room.

The general consensus in the F1 community was that Michael had pushed the boundaries of acceptable defensive driving, but hadn’t broken the rules. This may be true, but there is still enough ambiguity for the FIA to consider improvements to the regulations and their application.

The rules around defensive driving are vague and one of the stewards has since admitted they did not give this the appropriate level of attention.

The rule that governs defensive driving

Article 20.2 of the FIA Sporting Regulations state “Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as more than one change of direction to defend a position … are not permitted”. This would appear to suggest Schumacher’s defence at Monza was not within the rules, but this article is open to interpretation.

Many competitors (and stewards) believe that a driver can move once to defend his position before moving a second time to assume a faster entry into the next corner. The reasoning is the second move in this scenario is allowed because it isn’t a “defensive manoeuvre” and the driver is merely edging back towards the racing line.

Others feel that a driver who tries to reassume the racing line after moving to defend his position is breaching Article 20.2 of the regulations, and certainly isn’t acting within its spirit. After all, any change of direction a driver makes whilst under attack is a defensive move isn’t it? It’s certainly worth clarification.

The idea of this rule is to ensure a fair and safe battle between two drivers. The defending driver gets to choose where and when to place his car, whilst the attacking driver gets to respond. This allows the attacking driver the choice of pushing for an overtaking manoeuvre on the entry to a corner, or setting up another shot on the exit. When a driver moves twice to defend his position, he is removing the sense of fair play from the battle.

Importantly, this rule also means that an attacking driver can safely place his car in the knowledge that his rival will not change line halfway through a manoeuvre. The Hamilton/Kobayashi crash at Spa Francorchamps was a scary reminder of what can happen when a driver moves twice whilst defending his position.

My own personal opinion is that drivers should be allowed to make one move and that’s it, regardless of where that places them into the next corner. Commit to a line and stick with it.

It’s an area that should be cleared up so drivers and fans know exactly what’s right and wrong.

Even if Schumacher wasn’t breaking any rules, the FIA’s response to his driving suggested there are some judicial procedures that could be improved for the sake of consistency.

Schumacher given a warning

During his battle with Hamilton, Michael Schumacher was told by Ross Brawn to “leave room for the car when you move and change direction”. Brawn had to relay this message twice to his driver. It has since emerged that he did so because the FIA had warned Mercedes that Schumacher was heading towards a penalty for his vigorous defence.

This represents a huge inconsistency. Either Michael broke the rules or he didn’t. Lewis Hamilton did not receive a warning before he was penalised for making two defensive moves in the Malaysian Grand Prix. In that instance, Hamilton was judged to have broken the rules and was given a penalty front up. This was not the case in Monza. If Michael broke the rules he should also have been given a penalty, and if he wasn’t breaking the rules he shouldn’t have been warned. There would appear to be an inconsistency in the FIA procedures between Malaysia and Monza.

The F1 stewards are different at every Grand Prix and this removes any ongoing bias from the system. This is fundamentally a good idea and is adopted by many other motorsport categories around the world, but it can also lead to an inconsistent application of the rules. Although most governing bodies have some measures in place to ensure consistency in the judicial process, it would seem the FIA has not done enough.

Missing the action

Derek Daly was acting as the ex-driver steward at Monza and said after the race that he felt the stewards got it wrong. He now believes Michael Schumacher deserved a penalty for zig-zagging in front of Hamilton at the first Lesmo on lap 20.

Daly said “On lap 20, race director Charlie Whiting asked the stewards to look at an incident between Felipe Massa and Jarno Trulli at the second chicane. While looking at the slow motion video of this incident, I missed the Schumacher Hamilton incident that happened at that moment. When I looked at it again at home, I believe that Schumacher should have been given a drive though penalty … We as stewards probably let Charlie down with this one.”

That is simply inexcusable. An incident occurred on the track and the stewards did nothing about it because they were busy. At this level of the sport that is shockingly amateur. It isn’t Derek Daly’s fault, or any of the other stewards, but rather the procedures in place for dealing with such a situation. There would appear to be no clear distinction between those who simply identify incidents, and those who pass judgement on them. If the stewards were investigating another incident it is reasonable for them to miss something else, so there should be a separation of their duties to ensure that sort of oversight does not happen. The Moto GP system that uses two groups of four individuals with separate responsibilities would presumably have prevented this from occurring.

Improvements

As detailed previously on EnterF1.com, I would think Formula One would benefit from introducing something similar to the MotoGP stewarding system where half of those involved in the judicial process are permanent and have clearly defined responsibilities. F1 would also benefit from some firm rules around defensive driving (and how that relates to reassuming the racing line) so drivers and fans alike knew what was right and what was wrong.

Improving the rules and the stewarding procedures would prevent drivers from being unfairly defensive, and would prevent them from pushing the boundaries of the ambiguous regulations. It would also introduce more consistency into the stewarding process to prevent a one driver from receiving a warning whilst another driver receives a penalty for the same offence, and it would prevent stewards from missing a crucial incident on track.

There are always lessons to be learned.

Post a comment