The FIA: One rule for one, one rule for another

I just read an article on the ITV-F1 website about the controversial stewards decision to give Lewis Hamilton a 25-second time penalty for cutting the final chicane during last weekend’s Belgian Grand Prix.

One of the stewards who made the decision replied to what has been written in the newspapers over the last week about there being a conspiracy against McLaren. He insists that there is no such thing and that they FIA were completely unbiased when deciding how to punish the Brit.

I know that some of you might think I’m biased towards Hamilton and McLaren, being British and all, but I would be furious if any driver was penalised for something this ridiculous, especially if the decision could have an impact on the outcome of this year’s world championship. 

But, for some reason, I still have this nagging doubt in my mind about how unbiased the FIA are, and I think it’s time for some changes. In the article I read, it was announced that Niki Lauda and Sir Jackie Stewart “have called for Formula 1’s officiating system to be overhauled and permanent stewards appointed.” This sounds like a pretty good idea to me, because how can the sport be completely fair, if different people, with different opinions and views, enforce the rules every time Formula One travels to a new Grand Prix? How can the decisions be consistent?

I think the FIA should seriously consider this as an option for the 2009 season. It would be such a shame if this epic season wasn’t decided on the track, but rather by by some randomly selected men in suits watching TV screens.

Hamilton penalty is outrageous

I am completely outraged by the stewards decision to hand Lewis Hamilton a 25-second time penalty for “cutting” the Bus-Stop chicane during the final laps of the Belgian Grand Prix at Spa Francorchamps.

 Both Kimi Raikkonen and Lewis Hamilton were investigated by the race stewards for seperate incidents, but I felt neither driver deserved a penalty. For a start, Hamilton was forced to cut the chicane to avoid a collision with Raikkonen’s Ferrari.

Secondly, on the approach to the start/finish line, immediately after the incident in question, Lewis was told to back off and let Raikkonen passed, which he did. Lewis allowed Raikkonen to take the lead before making a completely seperate move up the inside of La Source. Clearly the stewards felt Hamilton didn’t fall back enough to negate the advantage he supposedly got from cutting the chicane.

But the problem I have is that the speed traps on the start/finish straight showed that Hamilton was travelling six kilometres per hour slower than Raikkonen, which means he got no unfair advantage over the reigning world champion by of cutting the chicane.

Also, after the race, Felippe Massa complained of having no grip in the wet weather conditions whatsoever, forcing him to crawl around the circuit at a snail’s pace. We have seen the Ferrari’s struggle in these circumstances on many occasions in the past and it’s a fact that the McLaren is able to retain tyre temperature more effectively in the rain than their rival, therefore, wasn’t it inevitable that Hamilton would take the lead from the Finn by either braking later into a corner or accelerating out of corners?

Lastly, I am bemused as to how the stewards feel they can justify handing out a penalty for this incident, when Massa and Ferrari got away with a 10,000 Euro fine for an unsafe release from the pits, especially when Bruno Senna in GP2 was given a drive-through penalty for the exact same offence during the Sprint race at Spa? I think the people making the decisions in Formula One should review their system for making such calls, because they are clearly inconsistent.

Am I wrong?