- 16 Aug 09, 22:04#143576
Ayrton Senna: WDC 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991
McLaren: WCC 1974, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2007
McLaren: WDC 1974, 1976, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2008
AUTOSPORT investigates the severity of Renault's breach of the rules in Hungary ahead of the team's FIA Court of Appeal hearing in Paris where it will find out whether it will be allowed to contest the European Grand Prix next weekend
By Adam Cooper
Fernando Alonso attempts to return to the pits with a loose wheel
It's almost been lost amid all the recent focus on Ferrari, but on Monday Renault will enter an FIA Court of Appeal hearing in Paris in an attempt to ensure that its cars are able to compete in the European GP.
If the stewards' decision issued after the race in Hungary is upheld, then the one-race ban will go ahead and Fernando Alonso will be absent from one of the two races in his home country.
That will be a huge disaster for the team and its sponsors, the Spanish promoters, and arguably for the sport in general.
To re-cap, the penalty came after a botched pitstop resulted in Fernando Alonso returning to the track with the retaining device – which is supposed to turn and lock to secure the wheelnut – not properly place at the right front. He knew almost immediately that he was in trouble and initially reported a suspected puncture. Television images soon showed that it was more serious than that and later round the lap the wheel departed for good, fortunately bouncing off the track without doing any harm.
Most observers thought little of the incident, as we've seen similar scenarios many times in the past. The difference is that on this occasion it came in the aftermath of the Henry Surtees and Felipe Massa accidents, and thus at a time when the issue of items breaking loose from cars was in sharp focus.
After the race, Renault team manager Steve Nielsen was called to see the stewards, and then came the shock news of the exclusion from the next race. The fact that it was Valencia, so important to driver and team, was a co-incidence - albeit one that gave the punishment a much sharper edge.
So what caused the stewards to reach the decision? Well as in all legal matters, you have to start by looking at precedent. At this year's Australian GP Red Bull Racing was fined $50,000 for allowing Sebastian Vettel to attempt to return to the pits after his accident with Robert Kubica. He had a front wheel hanging uselessly over the front of the car and, while it made for good TV and revived memories of the exploits of Gilles Villeneuve, it wasn't very sensible.
The FIA view was that the wheel could have come loose and caused an accident. That seemed to be a sensible judgement, especially as in 2001 a track official was killed at the very circuit - albeit in rather different circumstances.
In Hungary, after reviewing the evidence and speaking Nielsen, the stewards and their chairman Alan Donnelly effectively came to the conclusion that, on this occasion, a $50,000 fine was not a sufficient penalty. Since that is the maximum financial punishment they had available on the day, and it was not possible to disqualify Alonso from the race, exclusion from the next event was the alternative.
On this occasion we did get a reasonably detailed explanation of the decision. The important conclusions were as follows:
"That the competitor knowingly released car #7 from the pitstop position without one of the retaining devices for the wheelnuts being securely in place, this being an indication that the wheel itself may not have been properly secured.
"Being aware of this failed to take any action to prevent the car from leaving the pitlane.
"Failed to inform the driver of this problem or to advise him to take appropriate action given the circumstances, even through the driver contacted the team by radio believing he had a puncture.
"This resulted in a heavy car part [the metal retaining device] detaching at Turn 5 and the wheel itself detaching at Turn 9."
The team was penalised under Article 23.1i of the Sporting Regulations (it is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pitstop only when it is safe to do so), together with Article 3.2 (competitors must ensure that their cars comply with the conditions of eligibility and safety throughout practice and the race).
The first of those, unsafe release, usually refers to drivers being allowed out when someone else is coming down the pit lane, although it has also been used in conjunction with cars leaving before the fuel hose has been removed and so on.
This whole saga rests on failures to communicate. One of the guys on that corner of the car (the man who puts the actual nut on) raised his arm to say all was well while his colleague was still struggling with the locking device, and the lollipop man waved Fernando out.
The FIA's conclusion was that the guys on the right front didn't make it clear enough that they had not finished their job properly, or at least the message did not get through to right man on the pit wall sufficiently fast. Even if Alonso was already 200m up the pit road, it would have been possible to order him to stop immediately, and have him wait for the crew to come and pull the car back.
Renault mechanics practice pitstops © LAT
One FIA source said: "The guys who do this every day knew that one of the wheels was potentially not secure. They could have waved, they could have shouted at the lollipop man, they could have gone to the pit wall and told them to radio Alonso to stop at the end of the pit lane. They did none of that.
"It was such an obvious breach of the regulations. There are times I guess when people put a wheelnut on a car and it's not secure, but you don't visibly know that it's not secure. With these wheel covers that have to be locked in place, as the car drove away, it was spinning around. So the guy could see that it wasn't locked."
The bottom line is that even after TV pictures made it obvious the team apparently did not specifically inform Alonso that a wheel could fall off, and nor did they suggest he should stop. But what team, with the possible exception of the already penalised RBR, would even have considered that?
I'm told that aside from Alonso's own suggestion that he had a puncture, the only significant radio traffic during the whole episode was to the effect of a simple "come in and we'll change your wheel", which seems extraordinary if true.
As an interesting aside, I understand that in Australia RBR was told by race control to stop Vettel's crippled car immediately. There was no such direct order from the FIA on this occasion, but then the circumstances were rather different.
So did Renault really do something that was worthy of such a major punishment? Well, the wording of the stewards' document clearly implies that the team acted irresponsibly in allowing Alonso to continue. But we've seen similar scenarios many times in the past and penalties have been rare.
More than one key FIA source denied that the decision was a reaction to the Surtees/Massa incidents, possibly because they don't want it to be seen as a knee-jerk reaction. But in this case, I think most people would accept it. In matters of safety, unexpected things happen and reacting is exactly the right thing.
In effect the stewards have established if not a new rule, then a new 'understanding.' Henceforth, teams and drivers have to be aware that if they are in a situation where a wheel is working loose, they should pull over and stop, rather than plough on and wait for the inevitable parting of the ways.
It seems to be an eminently sensible approach to take and if it means that from time to time a driver has to retire an otherwise healthy car, so what?
In Hungary there was a lot of talk about covered cockpits and so on, but this simple step seems to be one way of reducing the risks, and not just for the drivers. You could argue that a wheel rolling gently away from a car that's running slowly can easily be spotted and avoided by a driver, but even at slow speed an errant wheel that hops a barrier is going to do some serious damage to any human being it encounters.
Indeed in Hungary Alonso's wheel did pass close to somebody standing behind the barrier, and that's something that caught the attention of the stewards. And it wasn't just about the wheel – the lost retaining device was potentially even more lethal than the spring that struck Massa.
"The point is that because they didn't tell Alonso to slow down, he was in racing conditions. It could have hit him, it could have hit another car. It was just an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do," says the FIA source.
It remains to be seen what happens in the Court of Appeal. There's a widely-held view that the penalty will be changed from exclusion to massive fine – let's guess at $500,000 or maybe $1m. The point will have been made and Renault will have taken a painful hit. But at least the team and Alonso will be able to compete in Spain and that's something that will benefit everyone. The other teams do not want to race in front of half empty grandstands.
That's certainly a scenario that would unfold if Bernie Ecclestone had a say in the matter - an outcome that might be expected by cynics who assume that all these things are part of a grand scheme and that decisions are determined in advance.
However, the FIA has always been keen to assure us that the appeal process is a transparent one and that the three judges come to their own conclusions. They may well be influenced in a positive way if Renault takes a conciliatory approach and acknowledges that it had some internal communication problems and made a mistake that won't happen again.
What's really unfortunate is the timing, given that there was such a long break after the last race. But with Renault and FIA personnel on holiday, and the necessity to find three judges from the FIA pool who were available in August, the hearing was delayed until this week. Should Alonso be free to race, the news may come too late for a lot of Spanish fans who had yet to book their trips.
If the exclusion is upheld, Renault will have already faced a lot of expense. The team's motorhomes and trucks will already be in Valencia, and one assumes it will face a hefty bill for flights and hotel rooms that couldn't be cancelled at a couple of days' notice. But compared to the embarrassment of not having Alonso race in Spain, such expenses are small potatoes.
A final thought. One of the three stewards in Hungary was Mohammed Ben Sulayem, who in March was given a very special opportunity by Renault in the form of a run in its R28 demo car at the Dubai Autodrome. The fact that he was still keen to support a penalty is arguably a demonstration that the system works, and outside influences do not play a role.
On the other hand, his decision was perhaps a little hypocritical, for that very day he contrived to turn sharp right into the pit wall, scattering rather more bits and pieces than Alonso did in Hungary.
By Adam Cooper
Fernando Alonso attempts to return to the pits with a loose wheel
It's almost been lost amid all the recent focus on Ferrari, but on Monday Renault will enter an FIA Court of Appeal hearing in Paris in an attempt to ensure that its cars are able to compete in the European GP.
If the stewards' decision issued after the race in Hungary is upheld, then the one-race ban will go ahead and Fernando Alonso will be absent from one of the two races in his home country.
That will be a huge disaster for the team and its sponsors, the Spanish promoters, and arguably for the sport in general.
To re-cap, the penalty came after a botched pitstop resulted in Fernando Alonso returning to the track with the retaining device – which is supposed to turn and lock to secure the wheelnut – not properly place at the right front. He knew almost immediately that he was in trouble and initially reported a suspected puncture. Television images soon showed that it was more serious than that and later round the lap the wheel departed for good, fortunately bouncing off the track without doing any harm.
Most observers thought little of the incident, as we've seen similar scenarios many times in the past. The difference is that on this occasion it came in the aftermath of the Henry Surtees and Felipe Massa accidents, and thus at a time when the issue of items breaking loose from cars was in sharp focus.
After the race, Renault team manager Steve Nielsen was called to see the stewards, and then came the shock news of the exclusion from the next race. The fact that it was Valencia, so important to driver and team, was a co-incidence - albeit one that gave the punishment a much sharper edge.
So what caused the stewards to reach the decision? Well as in all legal matters, you have to start by looking at precedent. At this year's Australian GP Red Bull Racing was fined $50,000 for allowing Sebastian Vettel to attempt to return to the pits after his accident with Robert Kubica. He had a front wheel hanging uselessly over the front of the car and, while it made for good TV and revived memories of the exploits of Gilles Villeneuve, it wasn't very sensible.
The FIA view was that the wheel could have come loose and caused an accident. That seemed to be a sensible judgement, especially as in 2001 a track official was killed at the very circuit - albeit in rather different circumstances.
In Hungary, after reviewing the evidence and speaking Nielsen, the stewards and their chairman Alan Donnelly effectively came to the conclusion that, on this occasion, a $50,000 fine was not a sufficient penalty. Since that is the maximum financial punishment they had available on the day, and it was not possible to disqualify Alonso from the race, exclusion from the next event was the alternative.
On this occasion we did get a reasonably detailed explanation of the decision. The important conclusions were as follows:
"That the competitor knowingly released car #7 from the pitstop position without one of the retaining devices for the wheelnuts being securely in place, this being an indication that the wheel itself may not have been properly secured.
"Being aware of this failed to take any action to prevent the car from leaving the pitlane.
"Failed to inform the driver of this problem or to advise him to take appropriate action given the circumstances, even through the driver contacted the team by radio believing he had a puncture.
"This resulted in a heavy car part [the metal retaining device] detaching at Turn 5 and the wheel itself detaching at Turn 9."
The team was penalised under Article 23.1i of the Sporting Regulations (it is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pitstop only when it is safe to do so), together with Article 3.2 (competitors must ensure that their cars comply with the conditions of eligibility and safety throughout practice and the race).
The first of those, unsafe release, usually refers to drivers being allowed out when someone else is coming down the pit lane, although it has also been used in conjunction with cars leaving before the fuel hose has been removed and so on.
This whole saga rests on failures to communicate. One of the guys on that corner of the car (the man who puts the actual nut on) raised his arm to say all was well while his colleague was still struggling with the locking device, and the lollipop man waved Fernando out.
The FIA's conclusion was that the guys on the right front didn't make it clear enough that they had not finished their job properly, or at least the message did not get through to right man on the pit wall sufficiently fast. Even if Alonso was already 200m up the pit road, it would have been possible to order him to stop immediately, and have him wait for the crew to come and pull the car back.
Renault mechanics practice pitstops © LAT
One FIA source said: "The guys who do this every day knew that one of the wheels was potentially not secure. They could have waved, they could have shouted at the lollipop man, they could have gone to the pit wall and told them to radio Alonso to stop at the end of the pit lane. They did none of that.
"It was such an obvious breach of the regulations. There are times I guess when people put a wheelnut on a car and it's not secure, but you don't visibly know that it's not secure. With these wheel covers that have to be locked in place, as the car drove away, it was spinning around. So the guy could see that it wasn't locked."
The bottom line is that even after TV pictures made it obvious the team apparently did not specifically inform Alonso that a wheel could fall off, and nor did they suggest he should stop. But what team, with the possible exception of the already penalised RBR, would even have considered that?
I'm told that aside from Alonso's own suggestion that he had a puncture, the only significant radio traffic during the whole episode was to the effect of a simple "come in and we'll change your wheel", which seems extraordinary if true.
As an interesting aside, I understand that in Australia RBR was told by race control to stop Vettel's crippled car immediately. There was no such direct order from the FIA on this occasion, but then the circumstances were rather different.
So did Renault really do something that was worthy of such a major punishment? Well, the wording of the stewards' document clearly implies that the team acted irresponsibly in allowing Alonso to continue. But we've seen similar scenarios many times in the past and penalties have been rare.
More than one key FIA source denied that the decision was a reaction to the Surtees/Massa incidents, possibly because they don't want it to be seen as a knee-jerk reaction. But in this case, I think most people would accept it. In matters of safety, unexpected things happen and reacting is exactly the right thing.
In effect the stewards have established if not a new rule, then a new 'understanding.' Henceforth, teams and drivers have to be aware that if they are in a situation where a wheel is working loose, they should pull over and stop, rather than plough on and wait for the inevitable parting of the ways.
It seems to be an eminently sensible approach to take and if it means that from time to time a driver has to retire an otherwise healthy car, so what?
In Hungary there was a lot of talk about covered cockpits and so on, but this simple step seems to be one way of reducing the risks, and not just for the drivers. You could argue that a wheel rolling gently away from a car that's running slowly can easily be spotted and avoided by a driver, but even at slow speed an errant wheel that hops a barrier is going to do some serious damage to any human being it encounters.
Indeed in Hungary Alonso's wheel did pass close to somebody standing behind the barrier, and that's something that caught the attention of the stewards. And it wasn't just about the wheel – the lost retaining device was potentially even more lethal than the spring that struck Massa.
"The point is that because they didn't tell Alonso to slow down, he was in racing conditions. It could have hit him, it could have hit another car. It was just an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do," says the FIA source.
It remains to be seen what happens in the Court of Appeal. There's a widely-held view that the penalty will be changed from exclusion to massive fine – let's guess at $500,000 or maybe $1m. The point will have been made and Renault will have taken a painful hit. But at least the team and Alonso will be able to compete in Spain and that's something that will benefit everyone. The other teams do not want to race in front of half empty grandstands.
That's certainly a scenario that would unfold if Bernie Ecclestone had a say in the matter - an outcome that might be expected by cynics who assume that all these things are part of a grand scheme and that decisions are determined in advance.
However, the FIA has always been keen to assure us that the appeal process is a transparent one and that the three judges come to their own conclusions. They may well be influenced in a positive way if Renault takes a conciliatory approach and acknowledges that it had some internal communication problems and made a mistake that won't happen again.
What's really unfortunate is the timing, given that there was such a long break after the last race. But with Renault and FIA personnel on holiday, and the necessity to find three judges from the FIA pool who were available in August, the hearing was delayed until this week. Should Alonso be free to race, the news may come too late for a lot of Spanish fans who had yet to book their trips.
If the exclusion is upheld, Renault will have already faced a lot of expense. The team's motorhomes and trucks will already be in Valencia, and one assumes it will face a hefty bill for flights and hotel rooms that couldn't be cancelled at a couple of days' notice. But compared to the embarrassment of not having Alonso race in Spain, such expenses are small potatoes.
A final thought. One of the three stewards in Hungary was Mohammed Ben Sulayem, who in March was given a very special opportunity by Renault in the form of a run in its R28 demo car at the Dubai Autodrome. The fact that he was still keen to support a penalty is arguably a demonstration that the system works, and outside influences do not play a role.
On the other hand, his decision was perhaps a little hypocritical, for that very day he contrived to turn sharp right into the pit wall, scattering rather more bits and pieces than Alonso did in Hungary.
Last edited by McLaren Fan on 17 Aug 09, 00:59, edited 1 time in total.
Ayrton Senna: WDC 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991
McLaren: WCC 1974, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2007
McLaren: WDC 1974, 1976, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2008
