Ferrari denies Whiting responded 'immediately' in Britain [Archive] - TheScuderia.net

vcs316

16th July 2010, 14:45

Ferrari has denied Charlie Whiting's claim that the FIA official "immediately" advised Fernando Alonso to let Robert Kubica re-pass at the recent British Grand Prix.

The Italian team was critical of the timing of Spaniard Alonso's drive-through penalty, describing it as a "fact" that "decisions are taken slowly" by the authorities.

FIA race director Whiting this week hit back, revealing that - before the penalty was imposed - he advised Ferrari "three times" that Kubica should be allowed to re-pass Alonso, including "immediately" after the illegal overtake.

But Ferrari's team manager Massimo Rivola has now moved to clarify Whiting's contradiction, revealing that the Briton at one point said the matter would be investigated by the stewards after the race.

"We just want to explain the facts so it is understood that we are not crazy," he is quoted by La Stampa newspaper.

Rivola said he asked Whiting after Alonso's pass "what should we do" and Whiting responded almost two minutes later.

"One minute and fifty five seconds is not immediately."

By then, he said, Alonso and Kubica had become caught up in battles with Jaime Alguersuari and Rubens Barrichello.

Rivola said he contacted Whiting again, to ask if Alonso now needed to cede position to several opponents, and then shortly afterwards Kubica retired.

La Stampa said Ferrari is concerned with the events that followed, because the broken pieces of Pedro de la Rosa's rear wing were lying on the track for a couple of minutes with the FIA taking no action.

Then, with Ferrari strategists convinced that Alonso will lose just 3 or 4 positions with his drive-through, the safety car was called onto the circuit, condemning Alonso to the rear of the field.

"This means that for two minutes that race was being held in unsafe conditions," said Rivola.

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=377709

Brakefade

16th July 2010, 21:33

Go to hell CW. I hope we can shove those titles in your face.

lizard_nl

16th July 2010, 22:04

Funny how Whiting tried to jump the gun and tell the world he had given Ferrari 3 warnings. It all makes sense now-he's f%&^ covering his a$$. You really have to wonder why he defended himself before even being accused of a wrong doing. Obviously this isnt the norm-never heard him defend himself in the past before being accused.

You have to wonder what the true story of the safety car in Valencia is now.

And what about Montreal about the backmarkers who messed up Alonso's race. Didn't see any warnings come out of this.

Maybe there should be another thread like the warnings/penalties thread there is for the hamster - an race stewarts/Whiting thread.

vcs316

17th July 2010, 03:24

Ferrari 'not asked' to let Kubica pass

Ferrari was not given an immediate order by the FIA for Fernando Alonso to give back his position to Robert Kubica at Silverstone, according to newly-published information relating to the pit wall radio conversations that took place during the British Grand Prix.

FIA race director Charlie Whiting told Italian magazine Autosprint earlier this week that he advised Ferrari straight away to let Kubica retake his position from Alonso.

However, according to a detailed report in Gazzetta dello Sport today, the team's version of events is very different.

Massimo Rivola, Ferrari's team manager, told the newspaper: "This is not polemics, these are elements to clarify why Ferrari made certain decisions and the logic behind them, after Alonso's move on Kubica."

According to Gazzetta dello Sport, this is the chronology of the events from Ferrari's perspective.

13:31:05 The overtaking move takes place at Club and after one second Rivola calls Whiting, who replies after 11 seconds. Rivola asks: 'Have you seen the pass? In our opinion there was no room to overtake.'

26 secs after the pass, Whiting asks to be given time to watch the TV footage.

13:33 Ferrari makes a second radio call - 1m55s after the pass. Alonso has completed another lap plus one sector, and is behind Nico Rosberg and Jaime Alguersuari, while Kubica drops further back.

Whiting tells Ferrari that the stewards think Alonso could give the position back. Rivola asks: 'Is this the decision?'

Whiting replies: 'No, but that's how we see it.'

Rivola informs the team while Rosberg overtakes Alguersuari. On the GPS screen that shows the position of the cars, Ferrari sees Kubica dropping further back. Meanwhile, Alonso overtakes Alguersuari at Turn 2.

13:33:22 Ferrari makes a third radio call.

Rivola tells Whiting: 'Alonso doesn't have only Kubica behind. He would have to concede two positions now.'

While they discuss the matter Kubica is overtaken by Barrichello so Alonso would have to now give up three positions.

Whiting replies: 'We have given you the chance to do it or not. Things being this way, the stewards will hear the drivers at the end of the race, but I understand your position.'

13:35:30 Kubica stops so Alonso can no longer give the position back.

13:45:31 The stewards investigate the Alonso/Kubica incident. The monitors then display 'car number 8 under investigation', 14m26s after the pass.

13:46:26 Just 55 seconds later the stewards decide that Alonso should have a drive-through penalty.

Tifosi

17th July 2010, 10:24

This really hacks me off all this quibbling.

Whiting tells Ferrari that the stewards think Alonso could give the position back. Rivola asks: 'Is this the decision?'

Whiting replies: 'No, but that's how we see it.'

That's all that relevant here. That and the simple fact that we should have used our heads and ceded the place immediately as a precaution.

Waiting until it was too late to do it was an unnecessary risk and bleating the details of the radio transmissions as some sort of justification of being badly done to is irrelevant sour grapes.

Do what the other teams do when they get shafted by the FIA's constantly moving goalposts.... shut up and move on. :-??

epiclyaddicted

17th July 2010, 11:14

Go to hell CW. I hope we can shove those titles in your face.

+ 1million :thumb

wolfy333sp

17th July 2010, 12:01

RedDragon

17th July 2010, 12:26

I have to say I haven't been pleased with the penalties this year, but whether Charlie "advised" or "told" Ferrari to let him past is irrelevant. During the race, Charlie is in a position to influence the stewards. It doesn't make sense not to take his advice. If I tell my daughter 3 times that she should pick up her toys before her daddy gets home, and she doesn't, she has no one to blame but herself if she gets in trouble. She knows the rules, I tell her she should follow them. If she takes the gamble and it doesn't pay off, she takes the punishment and moves on. I know it's apples and oranges, but we took the gamble, it didn't pay off, it's time we move on too.

Tifosi

17th July 2010, 12:27

What a load of old rubbish Tifosi, Things happen so fast and if it was one of the silver scums they would,ve got away with it.
The britsh idiots(race officails) want the silver scum to win no matter what, Each bloody race you can see it...I think what you said is soo wrong m8 (No Disrespect Intended)

supposition though that mate. The point is that we gambled on a 50/50 and got it wrong so pretending we were robbed when we could have avoided it is daft. As others have said, history has shown that when drivers do that they get penalised if they dont give the place back straight away so saying everyone has it in for Ferrari isnt an excuse for bad decision making by our team.

Besides, if you've followed F1 for years, you'll know that we have had our fair share of favourable decisions by the FIA and stewards.

xinebessa

17th July 2010, 12:30

This really hacks me off all this quibbling.

That's all that relevant here. That and the simple fact that we should have used our heads and ceded the place immediately as a precaution.

Waiting until it was too late to do it was an unnecessary risk and bleating the details of the radio transmissions as some sort of justification of being badly done to is irrelevant sour grapes.

Do what the other teams do when they get shafted by the FIA's constantly moving goalposts.... shut up and move on. :-??

Spot on... the fact that Ferrari asked the question means they knew that they were in the wrong... they should have just given up the place straight away rather than trying to get away with it!

Rosso Corsa

17th July 2010, 13:18

Spot on... the fact that Ferrari asked the question means they knew that they were in the wrong...

I don't agree. Ferrari thought it was borderline, neither wrong nor right, hence they asked. It was an aggressive attempt by Alonso with the overtake, and an aggressive reaction by Ferrari to continue, but at least they asked and stood by their decisions. I like to see Ferrari in aggressive mode again. That it didn't pay off this time is unfortunate, but we move on.

Tifosi

17th July 2010, 14:08

I don't agree. Ferrari thought it was borderline, neither wrong nor right, hence they asked. It was an aggressive attempt by Alonso with the overtake, and an aggressive reaction by Ferrari to continue, but at least they asked and stood by their decisions. I like to see Ferrari in aggressive mode again. That it didn't pay off this time is unfortunate, but we move on.

What is aggressive about trusting that a 50/50 decision will fall your way? Especially when you need all the points you can get and can't afford to lose them over something like this? We could have ceded the place and aggresively overtaken him cleanly again and gained some points. Very risky, especially after our issues at Valencia.

raylinds

17th July 2010, 14:23

raylinds

17th July 2010, 14:27

Rosso Corsa

17th July 2010, 15:00

What is aggressive about trusting that a 50/50 decision will fall your way? Especially when you need all the points you can get and can't afford to lose them over something like this? We could have ceded the place and aggresively overtaken him cleanly again and gained some points. Very risky, especially after our issues at Valencia.

Thats just semantics. What you define as risk, I define as aggression.

Hornet

17th July 2010, 15:45

If it was something so obvious, then Charlie and co. should have quickly made a decision. It appears to me that once again the stewards are taking too much time in making a real time decision.

This incident is, IMO, one of the most critical one in making a real time decision. If they want the driver to return the position, they have to quickly decide because as we've seen, with each lap, the position of cars changes quickly.

If they instructed Ferrari to hand over the position in time, I'm pretty sure thats what we would have done and all this pointless drive through penalty could be avoided

DIEK

17th July 2010, 15:54

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KLZGzLUgJTM/TCd69Wf-zoI/AAAAAAAAHRI/U7_oDgAwLXs/s1600/1692763074.jpg

Tifosi

17th July 2010, 15:56

Thats just semantics. What you define as risk, I define as aggression.

its not really semantics dude. Risk is the level of probability of loss. Being aggressive to overtake is fair enough. You can aggressively overtake someone and risk colliding with them. However, overtaking them (however aggressively) and risking a penalty as a consequence is a completely different thing :-)

Rosso Corsa

17th July 2010, 17:25

its not really semantics dude. Risk is the level of probability of loss. Being aggressive to overtake is fair enough. You can aggressively overtake someone and risk colliding with them. However, overtaking them (however aggressively) and risking a penalty as a consequence is a completely different thing :-)

I think we're looking at it from different experiences. I've made aggressive business decisions that for sure most people would say were too risky. Some you win, some you lose. It's not really important anyway. We're down a whole heap of points because of it, and thats regrettable. I guess a mixture of risk and aggression will be needed to haul them back :-)

Ferrari_Fanatic

17th July 2010, 17:27

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KLZGzLUgJTM/TCd69Wf-zoI/AAAAAAAAHRI/U7_oDgAwLXs/s1600/1692763074.jpg

if i go next to the saftey car and zoom off like this will you let it goooo??? lol

epiclyaddicted

17th July 2010, 18:32

Look, if we had given back the position immediately, we would have been fine. I know there was no way of knowing Kubica would retire, but it was obvious we had the speed to get by him. It was a panic move IMHO, not an aggressive move. Big difference.

I am not so sure about that to be honest. This is the FIA we're talking about, they defy all sense of logic! Why was Lewis penalised at Spa '08 again?

Tifosi

17th July 2010, 18:41

I am not so sure about that to be honest. This is the FIA we're talking about, they defy all sense of logic! Why was Lewis penalised at Spa '08 again?

cited reason: Lewis never gave back the advantage properly cos he was slipstreaming as a result of giving it back when he overtook the second time.

paranoid reason: Ferrari pressured the FIA into giving in cos of the unfair power they wield in F1 ;-)

.... and so it goes on :-??

tpe

18th July 2010, 09:57

After the transcript, I have to note 2 things:
1. CW answered after a considerable time.
2. They say to Ferrari that they will investigate it AFTER THE RACE. So, worst scenario would be a +25'', right?

To sum up:
Alonso should have gave back he position.
Since he did not AND since Ferrari tried to clarify everything, the stewarts should have stick to their decision (investigation after the race), especially since RK had retire.

It's not Ferrari's fault that they took them 2 minutes (1,5 laps!!!) to decide if FA was wrong doing or not.

And a crazy idea: I don't know why but I noticed that CW, lately, is taking too much time to decide for events in the track. I start to beileve that CW but retire and pass his position to a younger guy, better a non Englishman (no offence guys, but you must understand the way F1 is governed is a pure scandal).

Tifosi

18th July 2010, 10:15

epiclyaddicted

18th July 2010, 10:45

cited reason: Lewis never gave back the advantage properly cos he was slipstreaming as a result of giving it back when he overtook the second time.

paranoid reason: Ferrari pressured the FIA into giving in cos of the unfair power they wield in F1 ;-)

.... and so it goes on :-??

So see? Even if Alonso had given the place back to Kubica, there is no guarantee he wouldn't have gotten a driver-through anyway! Again, like I said, this is the FIA we're talking about!

Personally, I don't buy into any of those conspiracy/nationality rubbish, F1 is an international sport. But all I'm saying is that the FIA (at least the stewards and the Race Director) are severely incompetent, and on a given day, they can screw up anyone's race, which is absolutely disgusting, given that they are the organisers.

Hornet

18th July 2010, 11:52

And a crazy idea: I don't know why but I noticed that CW, lately, is taking too much time to decide for events in the track. I start to beileve that CW but retire and pass his position to a younger guy, better a non Englishman (no offence guys, but you must understand the way F1 is governed is a pure scandal).

From what I've seen of the steward's room, they have many people sitting in there with computers or some equipment infront of them. I doubt they are there to chat and have an evening tea together.

If anything, they should be able to quickly pull the information needed for Charlie and co to make a decision.

I think its the way the entire team there operate, they are just not doing things quick enough despite all the manpower and resources available to them.

distortion

18th July 2010, 14:20

...Personally, I don't buy into any of those conspiracy/nationality rubbish, F1 is an international sport....

Well, sort of...

It's an Investment and a functioning Business that's packaged and presented to it's customers as a Sport.

I for one have just about had enough of the business and politics side ruining the so-called sport. I am just about to turn it off.

Tifosi

18th July 2010, 14:35

So see? Even if Alonso had given the place back to Kubica, there is no guarantee he wouldn't have gotten a driver-through anyway! Again, like I said, this is the FIA we're talking about!

Personally, I don't buy into any of those conspiracy/nationality rubbish, F1 is an international sport. But all I'm saying is that the FIA (at least the stewards and the Race Director) are severely incompetent, and on a given day, they can screw up anyone's race, which is absolutely disgusting, given that they are the organisers.

Only if Alonso had been silly enough to overtake again immediately without correctly ceding the place back, but he would have known not to do that anyways :-)

NJB13

19th July 2010, 03:15

Given what we know now, I back our team and the calls they made at Silverstone. I know that it didn't pan out in our favor this time, but, what we have done is backed our driver and shown that we are not going to capitulate every time there is some gray area.
Fernando knows the team backed him up - even when there was room for interpretation - that's a good thing. We have shown that we are not going to run and hide every time things aren't 100% clear. If you take that point of view we will be giving back positions every time someone comes up with some precedent that casts any doubt on our move - I'm sorry, but that path might be politically correct, but, it will just show weakness and in the long run we will lose. Imagine if this view prevailed in Canada when Lewis was released into our path, Fernando should have stood back and let him through? Or imagine if we had applied this forever play-it-safe approach when the great GV was duking it out with the Renault in the last laps at ???? in 1979.
I'm not having a go at anyone, and I concede that for the race at Silverstone, with the advantage of hindsight, we would have been better off if we had given the place back immediately - but somehow, I think we would have paid in the long term for just giving up like that.
For me, I stick by our team and their decisions at Silverstone, and I'm really optimistic that the next two races will give us plenty to smile about.

tpe

19th July 2010, 08:00

it's governed by a Frenchman? Not only that but one that previously held strongly vested interests in Ferrari.

Please explain the scandal over and above that?

First of all, F1 is not FIA. In my opinion, regarding the F1 FIA is just the mean to get in business.
F1 is governed by BE and CVC.

Now, the scandal. Tell me how many races BE promotes? How many races are ousted from the calendar just because BE wants more money? And how may races are ousted from the calendar with hilarious reasons and returned a couple of years later, after the necessary redesign by the same architect?

Anyway, the reason I say that I do not want an Englishman is because I strongly believe that we need to have an 'independent' CEO, let's say an American, or a Japanese or whatever.

tpe

19th July 2010, 08:02

From what I've seen of the steward's room, they have many people sitting in there with computers or some equipment infront of them. I doubt they are there to chat and have an evening tea together.

If anything, they should be able to quickly pull the information needed for Charlie and co to make a decision.

I think its the way the entire team there operate, they are just not doing things quick enough despite all the manpower and resources available to them.

Yes, that's what the TV footage shown in the past. But the question is very simple: Why on earth CW wanted to see the TV footage when the TV had shown the pass? During the 11'' that took them to answer the call from Ferrari, TV had show the in-car replay. So, they could have an opinion/decision right there, during those 11''.

Tifosi

19th July 2010, 08:53

First of all, F1 is not FIA. In my opinion, regarding the F1 FIA is just the mean to get in business.
F1 is governed by BE and CVC.

Now, the scandal. Tell me how many races BE promotes? How many races are ousted from the calendar just because BE wants more money? And how may races are ousted from the calendar with hilarious reasons and returned a couple of years later, after the necessary redesign by the same architect?

Anyway, the reason I say that I do not want an Englishman is because I strongly believe that we need to have an 'independent' CEO, let's say an American, or a Japanese or whatever.

You were talking about the goverance of F1, not the politics of BE, CVC, Tilke etc. Now you're talking about your issues with them for some reason.

The whole nationality thing is stupid IMO. If CW was American, it wouldn't mean he had any less chance of being biased. Neither human beings in general or sports professionals work on such a simplistic level.

The thing you should worry more about is the politics and inefficiencies of the FIA, not the bias. It's lame to blame stuff on nationalities. The media is different. They pander to the home country as you'd expect cos it sells more papers, attracts more viewers etc.

Greig

19th July 2010, 08:58

CW gave Lewis the same penalty at France 08 was it....but he must be biased to the Brits right :-)

NJB13

19th July 2010, 09:58

Any talk that CW is biased and is in some way orchestrating things to suit British drivers is plain silly. Doesn't deserve to be answered or responded to - IMO.
On the other hand, it's definitely open to point out his incompetence and lack of consistency, and, again only my opinion, but, I think there's plenty of ammunition against CW on this count. Important to note that lots of people and teams have suffered from incompetent decision, it's just that we've copped a few recently.

Having said that - I had a look at the actual rules again 2010 SPORTING REGULATIONS 23-06-2010.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/65EE8F15945D0941C12576C7005308AE/$FILE/1-2010%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%2023-06-2010.pdf)
Here's a couple of quotes I think are relevant:-
1) "Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by
any driver, which ...... forced a driver off the track AND/OR illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver
This was obviously our team and driver's position. Now I know that some senior posters here are just diametrically opposed to this, but having watch it carefully, I can see our teams view.
I will point out again that Fernando definitely had the inside line (priority line) to the right hander of the chicane (where he went off). Not only did he have that inside, but no part of Kubica's car was ahead of our car from the previous apex - just my opinion, but, I can see where our team was coming from - we were ahead and on the inside. Now, the team was probably confident that they could put forward a good argument after the race.
2) Unless in the opinion of the race director it was completely clear that a driver was in breach ....... any incidents involving more than one car will normally be investigated after the race
By CW's own words he was not sure, he asked to review the video and he stated once that it would be reviewed after the race - which is what the rules say should have happened.
Give 2) again our team would have had some feeling that they could argue our case and, if we failed, expect a 5 or 20 second penalty.

Our team felt they had a case to argue, they expected (as the rules indicated and as CW told them) that it would be discussed after the race. Given those cards we decided to back our driver.