Two words spring to mind. One is Donnelly. The other is Alan.
Inconsistent stewarding is still an issue
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
- Status
Two words spring to mind. One is Donnelly. The other is Alan.
Cookinflatsix
Banned
But he wasn't a driver which is why I think that didn't go too well and wasn't that why they got a driver in on the panel
Probably hand in hand with Max he enjoyed dishing out punishment to drivers and at Max's parties
Probably hand in hand with Max he enjoyed dishing out punishment to drivers and at Max's parties
Sutil should have been given a grid drop penalty in addition to the fine. Why he wasn't is anyone's guess.
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
Stewarding seems to have gone from the 'ridiculous' to the 'sublime' and now the 'dozy, half asleep and not paying attention' variety.
We have heard after Monaco and Canada explanations from the Stewards room (Mansell and/or McNish (I seem to recall) that it's the driver behind who has responsibility to avoid a collision, yet this weekend we had the last vestiges of a challenge for the WDC wrecked by an incident deemed not to require investigation.
It's difficult to understand this, since someone on one of the two hottest laps of Q2 received a reprimand for threading his way past a bunch of people faffing about. The "faffers" had clearly lost all hope of crossing the line to complete their last laps with anything approaching a decent time before the fall of the flag. Their engineers should by that stage have been instructing their drivers to abort their laps, head to the pits and save their tyres. The fact that one faffer decides to turn onto the straight and not enter the pit lane (which he was conveniently positioned to do) and there is contact, was apparently worthy of investigation but only, it seems, in relation to the incident that followed on the run up to Eau Rouge.
I've mentioned this before elsewhere on Clip but I'll say it again: We are all aware of the tracking screens and full live timing data that teams use to tell them where their drivers are on track in relation to the opposition. They know precisely what is happening on track at any given time. So where were the reprimands for Williams (can't remember the other team) for nearly stuffing Hamiltons lap? (not, I hasten to add, that there should have been any). If Ham' deserved a reprimand then surely so did they because all that faffing around was part of the sequence of events leading to the bump with Maldonado.
All this wishy washiness would be all very well were it not for the ludicrously lenient penalty for an indiscretion which, whatever the cuddly PR talk on race day would have us believe, was an outrageous manoeuvre best left to bumper car racing at the fairground.
So, have we now got the worst of all worlds - Stewardship that is too wimpish, indecisive, weak and inept? and has bias and favouritism been truly or sufficiently shut out of the Stewards room?
We have heard after Monaco and Canada explanations from the Stewards room (Mansell and/or McNish (I seem to recall) that it's the driver behind who has responsibility to avoid a collision, yet this weekend we had the last vestiges of a challenge for the WDC wrecked by an incident deemed not to require investigation.
It's difficult to understand this, since someone on one of the two hottest laps of Q2 received a reprimand for threading his way past a bunch of people faffing about. The "faffers" had clearly lost all hope of crossing the line to complete their last laps with anything approaching a decent time before the fall of the flag. Their engineers should by that stage have been instructing their drivers to abort their laps, head to the pits and save their tyres. The fact that one faffer decides to turn onto the straight and not enter the pit lane (which he was conveniently positioned to do) and there is contact, was apparently worthy of investigation but only, it seems, in relation to the incident that followed on the run up to Eau Rouge.
I've mentioned this before elsewhere on Clip but I'll say it again: We are all aware of the tracking screens and full live timing data that teams use to tell them where their drivers are on track in relation to the opposition. They know precisely what is happening on track at any given time. So where were the reprimands for Williams (can't remember the other team) for nearly stuffing Hamiltons lap? (not, I hasten to add, that there should have been any). If Ham' deserved a reprimand then surely so did they because all that faffing around was part of the sequence of events leading to the bump with Maldonado.
All this wishy washiness would be all very well were it not for the ludicrously lenient penalty for an indiscretion which, whatever the cuddly PR talk on race day would have us believe, was an outrageous manoeuvre best left to bumper car racing at the fairground.
So, have we now got the worst of all worlds - Stewardship that is too wimpish, indecisive, weak and inept? and has bias and favouritism been truly or sufficiently shut out of the Stewards room?
Cookinflatsix
Banned
I think too many people underestimate the influence of the ex drivers on the panel. For most racing incidents, their opinion would govern. Mansell should not be allowed on that panel period and it is hard to see how he can be impartial as far as Hamilton is concerned! Personally I thought the new stewarding setup was going well until recent events and consistency is obviously still an issue. All this effort to get rid of Max and Donnelly yet we seem to be going back to the dark days again.
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12433_6179176,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/14023044.stm
http://www.formula1fancast.com/2011/07/formula-1-news/mansell-reignites-feud-with-hamilton
Threw in a few Daily Mail dross for equal measure
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ansell-slams-manufactured-Lewis-Hamilton.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-rejects-2-5m-karting-jibe-Nigel-Mansell.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/14023044.stm
http://www.formula1fancast.com/2011/07/formula-1-news/mansell-reignites-feud-with-hamilton
Threw in a few Daily Mail dross for equal measure
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ansell-slams-manufactured-Lewis-Hamilton.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-rejects-2-5m-karting-jibe-Nigel-Mansell.html
....especially when person in question is occasionally part of a stewarding panel. Those comments undermine his authority and does little to guarantee impartiality.
Well what can I say? Taking those quotes out of context they look quite damning, reading the entire articles Nigel has presented a thoughtful and well balanced analysis of Lewis' driving at Monaco. Lewis was criticised by many former drivers after his escapades in the Principality and many of his peers - they can't all be wrong, can they?
As to the Daily Mail articles, just complete crap but nothing more than I would expect from the Daily Mail.
Before the Lewis contingent on here jump on me from a great height I'm a fan of the lad, he's fast, exciting and probably the coolest driver on the grid, but he's not omnipitent. He has made mistakes and he has been badly treated on occasions - especially in his first 2 years in F1. But, and it's a big but, Lewis fans have a complete lack of objectivity, "every decision against him is biased" - well grow up, it's not.
F1 stewards, like any group of adjudiactors in sport have to make decisions on what they see, whether they have the benefit of TV replays or not. F1 has lots of grey areas, the overiding impression I have of the stewards this year is that they have been quite lenient and have actively avoid handing out the sort of penalties that coloured Max Mosley's tenure at the FIA.
As to the Daily Mail articles, just complete crap but nothing more than I would expect from the Daily Mail.
Before the Lewis contingent on here jump on me from a great height I'm a fan of the lad, he's fast, exciting and probably the coolest driver on the grid, but he's not omnipitent. He has made mistakes and he has been badly treated on occasions - especially in his first 2 years in F1. But, and it's a big but, Lewis fans have a complete lack of objectivity, "every decision against him is biased" - well grow up, it's not.
F1 stewards, like any group of adjudiactors in sport have to make decisions on what they see, whether they have the benefit of TV replays or not. F1 has lots of grey areas, the overiding impression I have of the stewards this year is that they have been quite lenient and have actively avoid handing out the sort of penalties that coloured Max Mosley's tenure at the FIA.
That was what I meant. I've no issue with Lauda or Stewart saying what they like, but if you agree to do the job for the FIA you should, ideally, put yourself above that sort of thing. Praise or criticism equally.
Out of context or not, it is fact that Mansell did say Hamilton is "manufactured" and was given 2.5million to go karting at the age of 7. He's clearly ill informed and his comments were childish to say the least. He simply can't erase the impression that he is not a big fan of Hamilton and thinks he's had it easy. In any other profession, he would lose his right to adjudicate on matters concerning said driver (see recent case of Vince Cable and BSkyB bid).
With all due respect, your second paragraph was unnecessary and isn't the point of the discussion.
Agreed.
Childish, no. Misinformed, yes. Jealous, yes.
Nigel had to work bloody hard to get into F1 and I'm sure there is some resentment to a driver who got a top seat, in a top team (in his eyes at least) relatively easily. Anthony Hamilton worked bloody hard to get Lewis into a position to get support of a top team and Lewis' talent did the rest but no one could argue that Lewis put anything of his own risk to get to where he is, apart from his life that is.
I'm no fan of Mansell's and I'd agree that if he wants to be an FIA stewards advisor he should keep his gob shut but I don't believe he's biased. I think we give too much power to the "former driver advisor", there are what, 3 other stewards on the panel and I'm sure they are all pretty well informed.
Nigel had to work bloody hard to get into F1 and I'm sure there is some resentment to a driver who got a top seat, in a top team (in his eyes at least) relatively easily. Anthony Hamilton worked bloody hard to get Lewis into a position to get support of a top team and Lewis' talent did the rest but no one could argue that Lewis put anything of his own risk to get to where he is, apart from his life that is.
I'm no fan of Mansell's and I'd agree that if he wants to be an FIA stewards advisor he should keep his gob shut but I don't believe he's biased. I think we give too much power to the "former driver advisor", there are what, 3 other stewards on the panel and I'm sure they are all pretty well informed.
If you agree there is resentment and jealousy towards Hamilton, how can he guarantee impartiality when passing judgement on matters concerning him? I'm sorry these are not mutually exclusive. To effectively engage in a public spat with a young driver half his age is childish to say the least. I've mentioned a few times on this board that when you listen to post race comments from these ex driver who have been on the panel, their opinion on racing incidents generally govern and they hold sway right from the decision to launch an investigation and subsequently issue any punishment. The rest of the panel can deal with general regulatory issues without their involvement. They are there as specialists and for a particular reason.
This would apply to most if not all the drivers on the grid.
This would apply to most if not all the drivers on the grid.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
