Hamilton's Penalty at Spa 2008

A look at the controversy that divided the sport.

Photo by Mark McArdle

On September 7, 2008 Lewis Hamilton crossed the finish line and took victory in the Belgian Grand Prix. However, around two hours later he was stripped of his win and relegated to 3rd place, as a result of a drive through penalty given to him for breaching Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 F1 Sporting Regulations and Article 2 (g) of Appendix L chapter 4 of the International Sporting Code. Considering that the penalty was imposed after the Grand Prix had concluded, 25 seconds were added to the McLaren driver’s race time.

The offence: cutting the chicane and gaining an advantage.

In the closing stages of the race Hamilton and the leader, Kimi Raikkonen, were fighting for P1. The Ferrari driver struggled with the grip on the rain sprinkled track more than his McLaren counterpart. Two laps before the end, Hamilton tried a move around the outside of the Bus Stop chicane, but cut the corner halfway through, when Raikkonen closed the door. The McLaren entered the main straight ahead of the Ferrari. Hamilton handed the position back, then jumped into the slipstream and overtook the Ferrari at La Source.

The Appeal: Admissibility

McLaren contested the stewards’ decision and presented their case before the International Court of Appeal on September 22.

The first obstacle put before the team was the issue of admissibility. Article 152 of the International Sporting Code (quoted in the ICA’s document, point 19) stated that:

Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal.

The provision was the FIA’s main weapon in the case.

McLaren argued that, the actual penalty Hamilton had been given: 25 seconds added to his race time, didn’t fall into any of the categories specified in Article 152.

The ICA rejected this argumentation and gave the following reasoning behind their decision: adding 25 seconds didn’t constitute a separate sanction, but simply was a different form of drive through penalty. This interpretation was based on the wording of Article 16.3 of the Sporting Regulations (the same document, point 18):

The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident:

a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping.

[…]

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4 b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.

Furthermore, the Court argued that the steward’s decision in penalty section explicitly stated: drive through, hence they’d intended to impose such a sanction. A drive through was one of the categories mentioned in Article 152, therefore it applied in the case in question.

The appeal was dismissed. Since McLaren’s protest didn’t pass the “formal stage,” the ICA saw no reason to address the substance of it i.e. whether Hamilton’s actions had complied with the regulations or not.

The Appeal: Liuzzi’s Case

A year before, the Court although composing of different judges, had ruled on a similar appeal. Toro Rosso contested the 25 seconds that had been added to the race time of their driver, Vitantonio Liuzzi for overtaking Adrian Sutil under yellow flags during the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix. The team had lost the case, but that was irrelevant to Hamilton’s penalty. What mattered was this:

Having acknowledged that the due hearing of all parties was in order, that the appeal was admissible

The citation above can be found in the document from Liuzzi’s case. It couldn’t have been worded much clearer.

One year later, the ICA had to address that fact, because obviously McLaren brought it up. Here is the Court’s reasoning (point 27):

The Court, in a judgment of 12 October 2007 rendered in the Toro Rosso case concerning the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix (driver Vitantonio Liuzzi), concluded, in similar circumstances, that the appeal against a decision to impose a 25 second penalty was admissible. However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case, the FIA for its part leaving the matter to the sovereign appreciation of the Court. Therefore, the Court was able, in the conclusion of its decision, to declare the appeal admissible, but it did not give reasons for its decision on the issue, as the question was not debated.

Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case.

Did the FIA Misrepresent Their Own Steward?

Liuzzi’s case had one more aspect that played a role in McLaren’s argumentation: the wording of the penalty that had been imposed on the Toro Rosso driver. Unfortunately I don’t have a link to the document itself, but the wording 25 seconds instead of drive through must’ve been used, given the following events.

Before the hearing McLaren had communicated the FIA their arguments. Of course they’d mentioned Liuzzi’s penalty. The sport’s governing body responded by claiming that Tony Scott Andrews, the chief steward at the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix since then had changed his mind and thought that a drive through should’ve been imposed (instead of 25 seconds) on the Toro Rosso driver.

Andrews allegedly notified the FIA Race Director, Charlie Whiting, about the above in a phone conversation.

McLaren wisely asked the source. Andrews found Whiting’s account “grossly inaccurate and misleading.” In his written statement, he claimed the Race Director had never asked him whether he had changed his mind. And if he had, Andrew would’ve answered: “no.”

McLaren to Race Control

The Woking team, during the closing stages of the Belgian Grand Prix, twice asked Whiting whether Hamilton’s move was okay and he green lighted it. So, on face of it, it looked like the Race Director mislead the team.

However, which the Team Principal at McLaren Ron Dennis admitted, Whiting could only give his opinion.

David Coulthard further explained the Race Director’s role: he could give his take, guidance and refer to the stewards, but him saying that a move, an overtake etc. complied with the regulations was irrelevant to the stewards.

The Rules

Hamilton was punished for breaching two provisions, mentioned at the beginning of this post. Here are the bullet points of them (point 3 of the document from the hearing):

Article 30.3.a) of those regulations stipulates that “during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behavior on circuits”. Article 2. g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code states that “the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race”.

That’s a little bit vague, but it’s logical to conclude from the above, that a driver should give back, what he gained off the track. The “what” was referred to as an advantage. Advantage is a rather loose term, but usually it had meant a position. Because that’s what drivers usually had been gaining by cutting corners.

That was the interpretation and Hamilton certainly was aware of it, as he had been penalized in France for overtaking Vettel via straightening a chicane, a few races prior.

What should be done after giving back a position? Could driver immediately attack after? And was it clear to the class of 2008?

Suzuka 2005

Those who think the answer to the last question is yes, often point to the incident between Fernando Alonso and Christian Klien at the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix.

The Spaniard got ahead of the Austrian by cutting the last chicane. He gave the position back at the beginning of the main straight, but used the tow to overtake his rival in the first corner.

Alonso, a few laps later handed the position back, after the Race Control informed his team, Renault, to do so. The answer seems obvious now?

However there was a twist in this case:

A message had appeared on Renault’s pitlane screen from race director Charlie Whiting to the effect that Alonso must surrender his place to Klien – again. Alonso was three seconds down the road down the road from the Red Bull by this time, so far from trying to pass Schuey, he instead had to wait for Christian and let him by. The team has protested that Alonso had already surrendered the place – and back came the message cancelling the previous instruction, saying it was okay for him to stay ahead. By which time he’d allowed Klien past…So Alonso had to repass again, going into lap 13.

The message came from Whiting, not from the stewards as Kravitz suggested during the broadcast. That’s a very important distinction given the role of the Race Director, explained by Coulthard.

If you think we’ve finally reached the end of it, then it’s my pleasure to disappoint you. Here is another important aspect of the Alonso-Klien affair – Article 53 a) of the 2005 Sporting Regulations:

If an incident is under investigation by the stewards a message informing all teams which driver or drivers are involved will be displayed on the timing monitors.

This has been the rule since, well frankly I don’t know exactly when, but F1 teams knew and know if their driver is under investigation.

Renault at Suzuka in 2005 did not receive such a notification.

Now the million dollar question is, whether the stewards had looked at the Alonso-Klien incident at all, or did they drop it once the Spaniard gave back the position?

The Fellow Drivers Speak

What other competitors, the ones not contracted by Ferrari nor McLaren thought about the incident? Of course the media asked them at Monza, the venue of the next race.

Jarno Trulli, and Nico Rosberg agreed that Hamilton had gained an advantage and should’ve waited at least one corner. However the German described the penalty as “harsh.”

Sebastian Bourdais called it “rough” but “pretty straightforward.”

Nick Heidfeld said it was “a common knowledge that you should not gain an advantage. And that’s as easy as it is.”

What Is an Advantage?

Mark Webber’s take on the matter was particularly interesting. In my view, he expressed best what the stewards at Spa might’ve taken issue with:

He [Hamilton] was totally in control the whole that front straight. He could control the whole thing himself in terms of blipping out of throttle and attacking Kimi immediately and straight away.

Well, Kimi had really nothing to fight back with. Because, obviously Lewis, even though he lifted, the speed across the finish line is really not that relevant, because he can just jump back in the tow and pick it back up again and do it on the brakes.

My understanding of the reasoning behind the penalty is that, although Hamilton allowed Raikkonen to retake the lead, he did it in a way that gained him the slipstream and an opportunity for an easy overtake. In other words he gave up “an advantage” only partially.

McLaren’s view differed, obviously. According to the team “an advantage” i.e. the position was handed back, therefore their driver gained nothing and passed Raikkonen, because he was faster at that point. (Hamilton had been catching the leader by 0.276 seconds between laps 36 and 40.)

The McLaren driver received support from Jakcie Stewart, Niki Lauda, Pat Symonds and ITV’s Martin Brundle and Mark Blundell.

The Aftermath

At Monza the FIA clarified the chicane issue during the drivers meeting with Whithing. From the Italian Grand Prix onward, a driver who overtook his rival by cutting a corner, has had to wait at least one turn before attacking, after giving the place back.

Webber applauded the clarification. The Aussie said that “generally it is pretty clear for people to probably not attack immediately again, which wasn't mega, mega clear in the past.”