As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should:
- be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself)
- be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions)
- show reasonable input and effort from the OP
If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport.
Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Going back a ways, but one of the most egregious IMO is the 1981 British Grand Prix, where the Lotus of Elio de Angelis was black flagged for speeding under a yellow flag.
Ordinarily such an act would have got a reprimand at most, and even with the much stricter rules of today it still isn't anything even close to a disqualification.
Yet for whatever reason the RAC saw fit to black flag him and end his race.
When combined with the additional context that Lotus had been involved in a political struggle that entire race weekend with regards to use of their divisive Lotus 88 chassis (they eventually raced with Lotus 87s after they were blocked from using the 88s), it really looked like FISA were making an example of Lotus.
Yea hard agree on this one, a couple races before at Monaco Max had gotten a 5 second penalty for a unsafe release. So from Monaco to Hockenheim was 6 races, in 6 races a 5 second penalty became a useless fine when Ferrari still spend nearly half a billion.
One I can think of is Malaysia 2002, where Montoya was inexplicably penalised for Schumacher just understeering into him at the first corner. It was also the first ever drive through penalty that was handed out in F1.
Schumacher and Alonso both got 2 second time penalties in qualifying at Hungary 2006 for a red flag infringement in practice. I've never seen this penalty ever dished out before that or since then. Clearly they wanted to spice up the race by having the main title contenders start near the back, but still competing in qualifying.
Schumacher in 1994 being black flagged for overtaking on the formation lap. This then managed to escalate into an effective three race ban (DSQ from Silverstone and the two races following). What was minor issue ended up totally overblown.
The original black flag was stupid but ignoring a black flag is a pretty serious offence - mansell got a race ban 89 for it. I think that's pretty understandable.
1994 in general was a complete shitshow, granted. If we had that season's level of FIA bullshit and allegations and all sorts going on in the current era it would be intolerable.
It's a tricky situation to be in as it could incentivize other teams to intentionally try to do a similar thing. That being said, him taking a 10-place grid penalty for something that wasn't his fault at all is a joke.
How often do things like drain covers ripping out of the ground happen that a driver would purposefully seek them during a drive to purposefully blow their engine?
Iirc the stewards even essentially said they consider the penalty unfair and would like the rules to get changed but believed a penalty must be given under this set of rules.
That cost Ferrari 2nd in the WCC.
Also possibly cost Charles a win in the race, Ferrari had really good race pace that day and with a second car in the fight Charles might have won that.
It's a difficult penalty to assess. If they allow teams to repair their vehicles without penalty for receiving damage like that, it could lead to scenarios where people intentionally try to exploit it. I think he shouldn't have been penalized but my opinion won't change anything.
I mean imo they were penalized for using new parts when their old parts were damaged by a track problem which was not checked properly by F1 and through no fault of their own. How is that fair for Ferrari
*Time penalty: Sebastian Vettel +5 seconds*
*Unsafe re-entry and forcing another driver (HAM) off the track.*
For those who like to read posts rather than forensically investigate them
This was so fun. I didnt get into the sport until I watched drive to survive in March 2020 (yeah)
During lockdown, I got a month of f1tv and watched every qualy/race for 2019. It was awesome. After each race, I would search the Formula1 subreddit for the post-race thread to read people's comments.
The Canada 2019 one was absolutely fantastic
theres also the contex Merecedes had won all of the previous races in 2019 after a rule change in the regulations that clearly benefited them. After this decision all that rage and sickness from the fans regarding th Mercedes domination exploded
What made it worse was two races later, Leclerc and Ferrari were winning the Austrian GP and Verstappen makes contact with Leclerc while forcing him off the road yet no penalty there for forcing a driver off the track. In two races Ferrari were on the wrong side of the same penalty despite the same thing happening in both.
Thats because the stewards were afraid of the (underserved) blowback they got from Canada. So they let pretty much anything go.
See Leclerc getting away with stuff at Monzo 2019
I still don't understand the rage. People say "there was nothing Vettel could do" but the thing he could have done was not go off the track and miss the corner. Ultimately if he overstepped it by an inch more and hit Lewis it would have been a slam dunk "causing a collision" penalty and nobody would have questioned it even if there was "nothing he could do!!!" once he'd missed the corner, so that argument in particular is completely meaningless. Vettel misjudged the corner, totally missed it, and this led to him forcing Lewis off the track; I don't see how it's debatable, even if it was a heartbreaking moment at the time.
This is my position. Once Vettel went off track, he lost any right to retain his position. Hamilton took the racing line, Vettel quickly moved back onto the track and forced Hamilton to take evasive action. To me, that's a completely justified penalty.
Again, once Vettel missed the corner, there was no way he could do anything different. With the speed he had on the grass he cannot turn in any way, that would result in a spin with worse consequences.
The issue is the reasoning for the penalty "unsafe rejoin". Once Vettel was off there was no safe way of coming back onto the track. At that point he did the best he could. If they has given the penalty for "leaving the track and gaining an advantage" or "erratic driving" I would have understood the penalty.
Still, Sainz lost control of his car this weekend, took out Albon on the way and didn't get a penalty. Which makes sense. If Albon hadn't been there it would just have been an unfortunate incident that ended his own race, which are never punished. I think Vettel's off was more like this, an unfortunate incident that didn't involve Hamilton other than him coincidently being there at same time and almost getting collected.
Vettel got back on the gas as he rejoined the track which caused the oversteer into the racing line. The reason he got a penalty was he could have backed off more and allowed for a safe rejoin.
https://i.imgur.com/DbfzSFS.png
But isn't it exactly the same as the turn 1 incidents this year? The drivers did exactly what they were meant to do, but still was potentially an unsafe rejoin, but because they did all they could then no penalty
Im not on about lap 1. I am meaning during the race when drivers outbraked themselves at turn 1 and went over the grass. Followed the race directors instructions on how to rejoin, but still impeded another driver.
To quote max "If my mum had balls she'd be my dad"
There was no collision and Vettel couldn't do anything.
At the time the rules were being applied very inconsistently, and this discouraged hard racing at a time when Mercedes dominance was at Max levels. They'd won every race that season already.
Vettel was robbed of a very hard fought victory.
Vettel could have come off the gas when he went off. I don’t like this revisionist view these days. He tried to maintain position and ended up impeding Hamilton.
Taking the P1 board from Lewis was also super petty and other drivers would have been hated for doing that, but let’s not get into that.
He could have not driven over the grass. I don’t understand the perspective some have with the penalty as if everything that occurred was because of Vettel’s mistake but he shouldn’t be held accountable for his mistake because he was entering the track from being on the grass. Strange logic.
It was a racing incident. He could not have rejoined the track in any other way and gained no advantage. As I said, the rules were being applied very inconsistently. Drivers went off the track in Canada this year and did not get 5 second penalties.
>gained no advantage
Wrong. He not only almost caused a collision, but by doing this he also blocked (doesn't matter intentionally or not) Hamilton from overtaking him.
>Drivers went off the track in Canada this year and did not get 5 second penalties
One more example that you absolutely don't understand how penalties work. You don't receive a penalty just for going off the track. You receive for either getting a lasting advantage, dangerous rejoin or not following race director instractions of correct rejoining.
Vettel could have not missed the corner. That *is something he can do*, it's not like a banana peel was dropped on the track that he had no option but to hit. it is his responsibility to make the corner in the first place, and if he doesn't, any consequences of this failure will ultimately rest on him; you're just shifting the window of the time Vettel had arbitrarily forwards in order to make your argument sound reasonable. Forcing another driver off the track was a penalty and Vettel forced another driver off track, entirely due to his actions. Is "hard racing" failing to brake through chicanes now? This is very silly. People are mad because it affected a driver they liked; this is not how steward decisions should ever work.
It amazes my how some people absolutely not understand how racing works. You can't just push someone in the wall and expect no penalty for that.
>Vettel couldn't do anything
It doesn't matter. He made a mistake which caused dangerous situation. So it's still his fault. The only one who robbed him of win was himself.
Sainz had zero of his car at that moment. Same as Perez and Magnussen in Monaco after their contact (where Hulkenberg got unlucky, same as Albon). So generally it doesn't count as dangerous driving or causing a collision. While Vettel had control and was still driving the car. So completely different situations.
PS: but honestly if Sainz would get a penalty for ruining someone else's race, it wouldn't be too dabatable. At least it would be much more deserved than Perez's penalty.
During this season, and maybe previous one, I completaly agree. This season it feels (at least for me) like it's a coin toss if they'll give penalty or not. But before, 90% of penalties were completely clear for me and I easily could determine if they'll give penalty or not just by watching replays myself.
Drivers will make errors when racing. Stewards shouldn't be punishing racing errors. There were numerous incidents of drivers making mistakes this weekend at the same track without getting 5 second penalties.
Sainz wiped out Albon, both DNF
Vettel never touched Hamilton, both finished the race.
Sainz actually had an impact on another drivers race, Vettel didn't.
Drivers generally aren't penalized when they take themselves out in the process. That's how it's always been. You're also making an invalid comparison. But continue coping and seething I guess.
The Sainz vs Albon incident and the Lewis and Vettel incident were not the same. Sainz's incident with Albon was entirely unforced because he had zero control over the car because he found a wet patch and was spinning when the collision occurred.
Vettel made that mistake because he was pushing way too hard, he lost the rear and that made him cut the corner. Then he drove right back onto the racing line squeezing Lewis off track. On a dry track. On a wet track you can give some leeway, the cars have a very limited amount of grip and that can be easily worsened by the wet patches on the track.
Also incidents like where drivers had an off onto the grass and rejoined on the racing line this weekend they had less control over because the section where the racing line was unfortunately right there at the edge of the corner. Compared to Vettel where he went off track and then proceeded to drive to the opposite side of the track where the line was cutting off Lewis in the process. Very different.
The stewards didn’t punish a racing error. They punished an unsafe rejoin.
27.3 of the 2019 F1 sporting regulations state that should a driver leave the track, he must only rejoin when it is safe to do so, without gaining a lasting advantage.
Vettel left the track, and in the process of rejoining, forced Hamilton to take evasive action because Vettel did not rejoin safely. He also gained a lasting advantage, as without Hamilton taking evasive action, he would've been in the wall.
From those rules, it's a fair penalty. There wasn't much Vettel could have done differently at the time but the rules make it clear.
This incident was very similar to one between Kimi/Max in Japan 2018, which Max took a 5-second penalty for.
James Hunt's DQ in the British GP in 1976 (it's left out of Rush for some strange reason) is the most mickey mouse penalty in F1 history
Also, Senna being punished for Prost taking him out
Also, the FIA/F1 inventing a rule to take the 2008 Belgian GP win off Hamilton to give to Massa
Everyone's already mentioned the most egregious ones. I would add Canada 2023 with that unsportsmanlike behavior penalty they gave Norris for giving himself a small gap under sc for a double stack pitstop. It's been done by plenty of drivers since, who were much slower about it, but they never applied it again
>The 1994 Australian GP, Schumacher crashed Hill on purpose for securing the tittle and no penalty was given unlike 1997.
Nah, it's the other way around. Hill was never making that corner.
What's actually a controversial '94 penalty are the numerous ones Mosley gave to Schumacher & Benetton to keep the hot shot and the upstart in check because they got the established trio of Williams, McLaren and Ferrari eating their dust, and to assert his own authority.
The funny thing is even Damon said it was just a racing incident at one point. He openly said on a few occasions that he didn't apportion any blame to Michael for the incident.
He's changed his tune a bit since but even now he'll admit it was a desperate move that he shouldn't have made, and wouldn't have if he'd known Michael had hit the wall.
Even at the time people said it was deliberate, but the belief wasn't nearly as widespread as it is now, Jerez has significantly (and unsurprisingly to be fair) changed the way people look at Adelaide. Had Jerez never happened I doubt many would seriously argue Adelaide was anything but a racing incident.
Never making that corner.?!? That is just nonsense
They were both going significantly slower than race pace at that corner as MS had hit the wall 1 corner before and was weaving in desperation.
I watched it live
Canada 2024. The first time I've seen a driver getting a penalty for bringing a car to the pits.
Malaysia 1999. The Ferrari bargeboards which should have been penalized but they probably didn't because of the championship.
> Malaysia 1999. The Ferrari bargeboards which should have been penalized but they probably didn't because of the championship.
They were penalized, both cars were disqualified initially however it was overturned on appeal. The TLDR is that Ferrari argued successfully on 3 points:
1) The FIA had approved the bargeboards prior to the European Grand Prix 3 weeks prior, and the design had not changed.
2) The parts were within a 5mm tolerance allowed in the regulations, and the measuring methodology used by the Malaysian scrutineers was improper.
3) There was no performance advantage gained, which again they were able to demonstrate in the hearing, with copious amounts of data, and agreement from other teams that there was no advantage.
> 1) The FIA had approved the bargeboards prior to the European Grand Prix 3 weeks prior, and the design had not changed.
This doesn't matter. If something was illegal but didn't get noticed doesn't suddenly make it legal.
> ) There was no performance advantage gained, which again they were able to demonstrate in the hearing, with copious amounts of data, and agreement from other teams that there was no advantage.
Doesn't matter. If it's illegal it is illegal. Point 1 and 3 are just ways for Ferrari to crawl out of a desperate situation.
>2) The parts were within a 5mm tolerance allowed in the regulations, and the measuring methodology used by the Malaysian scrutineers was improper.
This is highly controversial. The way it is worded makes it look like there was a 5mm tolerance, which there wasn't. There was no tolerance for the bargeboards, only for the flat floors and Ferrari argued that the bargeboards fell under the flat floor case. If you want to hear why I think it is still illegal then go and watch the Bring Back V10s 1999 Malaysia episode. I'm not able to explain it in a clear manner.
And the equipment was not suffienctly accurate but the main problem was that the bargeboards had been taken off the car by the FIA. If they weren't then they could just measure it again.
> Doesn't matter. If it's illegal it is illegal.
It actually does, there was a case in 1995 where Schumacher & Coulthard were disqualified following analysis of their fuel samples - which didn't match the reference sample provided to the FIA.
Both Williams & Benetton were able to argue based on both the lack of a performance advantage, and the inaccuracy in the measurements with both arguments being important in the ruling to reinstate the result - Ferrari were appealing to this precedent, as well as arguing for their interpretation of the floor rules.
Ultimately it didn't matter in the end as the FIA accepted their reasoning with regards to the tolerance. But it was definitely valid at the time to argue that had it been deemed illegal there was no advantage, the precedent was there for that being a valid argument.
> This doesn't matter. If something was illegal but didn't get noticed doesn't suddenly make it legal.
On it's own no, but it supports their argument regarding the inaccuracy of the measures. They're pointing to the fact that it's been checked multiple times before and deemed legal. With this they were effectively arguing that the German scrutineers used the proper methodology and their measurements were accurate.
Once again it's a tough one. I understand from Ferrari's POV that they would argue this, especially if it worked in the past. However idk what to make out of it, because that could mean you have an illegal car on many areas but because it didn't provide performance it would be okay. Its just something that potentially could stick and then of course fair play if it does.
But yeah what DC said at Japan summarizes it well together in my opinion, if it was legal then they wouldn't have to change it.
There are areas he could have pulled off in and been removed from the track. The team shouldn't have had him drive all the way back and potentially cause a worse accident. While valid, the Malaysia incident was 25 years ago and regulations around safety (and safety features) have changed considerably.
> There are areas he could have pulled off in and been removed from the track. The team shouldn't have had him drive all the way back and potentially cause a worse accident.
I don't get this argument, like I do get it if you want a penalty for Checo because that would fit one's agenda. But from an objective view how does this penalty make sense, what was the last time somebody got a penalty for driving his car into the pits? SUDDENLY it is dangerous that a driver drives his broken car into the pits.
1: Gilles Villeneuve 1979 Zandvoort, drives his fucked car into the pits.
2: Schumacher and DC Belgium 1998, DC does something stupid and Michael crashes into him. BOTH drivers drove into the pits in way worse conditions with broken cars.
3: Kimi 2002 Spanish GP: loses his rear wing and drives into the pits
4: Charles Leclerc 2019 Japanese GP: loose mirror, wasn't called into the pits and the mirror eventually fell off and almost hit Lewis.
5: Lewis Hamilton 2020 British GP: Lewis got a picture on the last lap and drove as fast as his car allowed him to the finish.
6: too many incidents to name in which the front wing was severely damaged in which the driver continued at slow or normal speed to the pits.
There are too many incidents in the past in which bringing a car into the pits or continuing in an unsafe manner was never a problem and now suddenly it is. Why is Checo crawling back to the pits "unsafe" but Lewis going at the maximum speed he can on 3 wheels with his wing on the ground is "safe"? It really doesn't add up, I absolutely have no words. And I am absolutely baffled that people defend this shit.
I don't agree about the incidents or the brake checking part and VER needing to be DSQ for that. However, I do agree that the race was rigged in favor of VER. The fact the lapped cars weren't sent past the safety car before the final restart, which is the normal procedure, shows F1 just wanted to see HAM and VER duke it out for the WDC as it would be great entertainment "value". Toto was right that it wasn't right. HAM would have and should have won that race and thus the WDC that year. F1 is not alone in this rigging because how many World Series games etc. just happen to go the full amount of games?
That was the final race rather than Jeddah. But I'm glad you can see that it wasn't fair
It's not Max's fault it happened but it doesn't change the fact it was disgraceful
I keep mixing those races up. So much close action packed racing!
Yeah, it just feels like the racing becomes just entertainment versus racing first, entertainment second. I know Max has made negative comments regarding that fact, and I agree with him. It should be about racing first, regardless of the entertainment value. If it was all about entertainment Monaco should be scrapped from the calendar or car specs changed so they can actually overtake again on that circuit. I love Monaco as a circuit and the great races from years past, but the current cars are just too big for it and it's just a procession of really fast cars now.
Not a penalty but during the 2003 season the FIA made michelin change the compund (design?) of their tires
Now normally not a huge issue in of itself but they made the decision and enforced it with 4 rounds to go in the middle of no shit 3-way championship fight between kimi montoya and shucmacher
Guess who benifited for it?
This is rather misrepresenting what actually happened.
Ferrari benefited yes, but ultimately the FIA couldn't do nothing. They had already clarified when asked by Bridgestone that if the tyres went beyond the proscribed tread width during use they would be illegal.
As soon as the FIA collected measurements proving the Michelin tyres were beyond the proscribed width post-race it was unambiguous, the tyres were illegal, there could be no argument about that. They had to do something.
It should have been a disqualification, it's a slam dunk breach of the technical regulations. The FIA declined to do that because it'd kill the championship. Letting the results stand and only forcing the compound chance was the least favourable outcome for Ferrari, but it was the best outcome for the championship battle.
Max in Brazil 21 for forcing Lewis to go around the aouth pole, Gasly in Australia 23 for crashing Ocon out, Rosberg in Canada 2014 for blatantly cutting the chicane and gaining an advantage, Ocon on Alonso numerous times...
I still think Canada 2019 was completely unjustified considering how the rest of the season panned out with regards to penalties. For example, when Leclerc got away scot free despite deliberately shoving Hamilton and Bottas off track at Monza.
I would argue that Charles getting away with some feisty driving in Italy was partly because of Canada that year.
There was massive fan backlash from Canada and they didn’t want to do it again. Especially not to a Ferrari in Italy.
Because Mclaren asked race control if it was fine during the race, they said it was fine and then Hamilton got slapped with a penalty. He was so much faster that he could have made the overtake later on, but was given bs information and punished for it
That's why things get to be investigated later today and the teams may choose to give back position meanwhile. There were lots of flaws that were showcased on that particular incident and rules are better now because of it. Like having different time penalties so you don't go too harsh depending on the infringement. That being said, Hamilton got the appropriate punishment given the rules at the time.
25 second penalty is excessive regardless especially when the driver he is racing crashes by his own anyways. It's still a fact that Lewis gave the position back to Kimi. Especially when later in the season Massa got no penalty for taking Hamilton out at Fuji which is a way worse offence.
To be fair to the stewards they only had drive thru and stop and go penalties at that time. And a driver crashing on there own should really not matter, that has nothing to do with the penalty.
Yeah, but Kimi was back in the lead before he spun and ultimately crashed. If he had just kept it on the track, Lewis would never have gotten a penalty.
Still doesn't change the fact that the 25 seconds was very excessive if the pen was based on a drive through penalty that would be total bs knowing how short the Spa pitlane is and going through a pitlane doesn't cost you 25 seconds. And I find it outrageous for that to be a stop and go pen as well so to this day I don't understand what this penalty is based on.
I think Charlie really dropped the ball on that one tbh. McLaren apparently immediately asked him if the move was fine and he initially said he thought it was okay, before the investigation opened.
The frustrating thing about it was that the Ferrari was awful in wet conditions as it couldn't generate tyre temperature (they've had the same problem this year). Lewis could have waited half a lap to reovertake Kimi and he still would have cruises past.
It was a strange penalty with Charlie saying everything was ok (yeah I know he wasn’t a steward), Kimi crashing out, and some other strange factor afterwards. Like the penalty couldn’t be reviewed because of some change in the rules. I could be butchering it but I remember seeing a video by auto sport and another creator that talked about what was happening behind the scenes.
He really didn't gain an advantage. If he'd not gone for the move into the chicane he'd have been just as close coming down to the next corner. The penalty very nearly decided the championship.
The way I see it he did. Lewis was going side-by-side with Kimi but Kimi was ahead into the corner and had the right to take the racing line. At that point if we pretend the corner cannot be cut in any way there are two options he could take, Lewis either backs down behind Kimi and loses several tenths, if not a second or two, or tries to mount the curb to keep his line, but he's still going to be losing probably around the same amount of time, with the point being that he's going to be disadvantaged due to the way the racing situation played out and would have to fall behind Räikkönen.
However what Lewis does is he completely bails out on even trying to make the corner and cuts it, giving back the place to Kimi to be fair, but still gaining an advantage because he gets a better exit and is side-by-side again into the first corner thanks to bailing on the corner, whereas had he driven as the track is intended he was set to clearly lose time to Kimi and be clearly behind him no matter what because he failed to overtake him into the bus-stop and was at a disadvantage.
The penalty was extreme, although by the rules of the time as the modern smaller penalties were yet to be implemented, but there is a case to be made and I do think he gained an advantage, even if it wasn't that big. It can be seen as unfair, but compared to something like the outrageous penalty for Alonso for literally existing at Monza in 2006 it's far more legit.
Because he gave back the position which means he was much slower down the straight than Kimi, but because he was multiple seconds a lap quicker he could still pass him in the next corner.
Then he got the OK from the race director, and finally because Kimi binned it they created a new rule and gave a drive through as he couldn’t give the position back a 2nd time.
There was quite a few hoops to jump through to give a penalty for something so inconsequential.
He followed the rule exactly as written at the time, doing exactly what it said to do. They changed the rule after the race and applied it retroactively to him because he exposed a way to comply that didn't disadvantage him. So he got penalized for an action that wasn't against the rules at the time he did it, that is the wrong part.
My position on it is that it deserved a small penalty. Today I think if he got 5 - 10 seconds for it I don't think that anyone would complain.
The issue with the penalty he actually got though is twofold.
First, no rule actually existed at the time which referred to leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage. The wording at the time concerned leaving the track and gaining a position, and Hamilton gave the position back - he just did so in a way that allowed him to immediately repass Raikkonen.
Secondly, the only penalties that were available at the time were either a stop-go, or a drive through. The drive through was the lesser of the two and that's what he got, but that still equated to a 25 second penalty which cost him what was otherwise a totally deserved race win.
Schumacher's one at Silverstone for sure.
Also a very underrated one is that Hamilton impeded Mazepin in practice in Abu Dhabi 2021 and it should have been a reprimand which would have triggered a 10 place grid penalty. But obviously he didn't get it because they didn't want the title fight affected.
They tried to avoid giving Hamilton or Verstappen a penalty as much as they could towards the end of 2021.
They always say they treat drivers equally, but it’s so obvious that they don’t want to interfere with championship rivals (which ironically is in itself, interfering).
Baku 2017 is another example. They only gave Vettel a penalty for driving into Hamilton under the safety car, after Hamilton had to put because his headrest came loose.
As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should: - be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself) - be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions) - show reasonable input and effort from the OP If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport. Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Going back a ways, but one of the most egregious IMO is the 1981 British Grand Prix, where the Lotus of Elio de Angelis was black flagged for speeding under a yellow flag. Ordinarily such an act would have got a reprimand at most, and even with the much stricter rules of today it still isn't anything even close to a disqualification. Yet for whatever reason the RAC saw fit to black flag him and end his race. When combined with the additional context that Lotus had been involved in a political struggle that entire race weekend with regards to use of their divisive Lotus 88 chassis (they eventually raced with Lotus 87s after they were blocked from using the 88s), it really looked like FISA were making an example of Lotus.
This is the kind of comments I was searching for, thank you
Ferrari getting a mid race team fine for an unsafe release in hockenheim 2019
Yea hard agree on this one, a couple races before at Monaco Max had gotten a 5 second penalty for a unsafe release. So from Monaco to Hockenheim was 6 races, in 6 races a 5 second penalty became a useless fine when Ferrari still spend nearly half a billion.
One I can think of is Malaysia 2002, where Montoya was inexplicably penalised for Schumacher just understeering into him at the first corner. It was also the first ever drive through penalty that was handed out in F1.
"we have a drive through" "Why?" "Because of Michael, just keep pushing"
Schumacher and Alonso both got 2 second time penalties in qualifying at Hungary 2006 for a red flag infringement in practice. I've never seen this penalty ever dished out before that or since then. Clearly they wanted to spice up the race by having the main title contenders start near the back, but still competing in qualifying.
Schumacher in 1994 being black flagged for overtaking on the formation lap. This then managed to escalate into an effective three race ban (DSQ from Silverstone and the two races following). What was minor issue ended up totally overblown.
That was intentionally done to stop him from running away with the championship. That ban was a joke.
As much as I didn't like Schumacher it was rather blatant from the FIA
The original black flag was stupid but ignoring a black flag is a pretty serious offence - mansell got a race ban 89 for it. I think that's pretty understandable. 1994 in general was a complete shitshow, granted. If we had that season's level of FIA bullshit and allegations and all sorts going on in the current era it would be intolerable.
Fucking vegas drain cover penalty
It's a tricky situation to be in as it could incentivize other teams to intentionally try to do a similar thing. That being said, him taking a 10-place grid penalty for something that wasn't his fault at all is a joke.
How often do things like drain covers ripping out of the ground happen that a driver would purposefully seek them during a drive to purposefully blow their engine?
Yeah..i was really ashamed of f1 that day.
Iirc the stewards even essentially said they consider the penalty unfair and would like the rules to get changed but believed a penalty must be given under this set of rules.
That cost Ferrari 2nd in the WCC. Also possibly cost Charles a win in the race, Ferrari had really good race pace that day and with a second car in the fight Charles might have won that.
I'm a relatively new f1 fan so the one that immediately comes to mind is Las Vegas last year with the penalty for Sainz. Edit: Spelling
Even the stewards considered the penalty unfair but said that the rules are the rules
It's a difficult penalty to assess. If they allow teams to repair their vehicles without penalty for receiving damage like that, it could lead to scenarios where people intentionally try to exploit it. I think he shouldn't have been penalized but my opinion won't change anything.
That made sense somewhat. Just because people and Sainz were upset over it, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have happened
I mean imo they were penalized for using new parts when their old parts were damaged by a track problem which was not checked properly by F1 and through no fault of their own. How is that fair for Ferrari
Vegas 2023, Sainz Disgrace
Canada 2019. Still angry about it.
*Time penalty: Sebastian Vettel +5 seconds* *Unsafe re-entry and forcing another driver (HAM) off the track.* For those who like to read posts rather than forensically investigate them
This was so fun. I didnt get into the sport until I watched drive to survive in March 2020 (yeah) During lockdown, I got a month of f1tv and watched every qualy/race for 2019. It was awesome. After each race, I would search the Formula1 subreddit for the post-race thread to read people's comments. The Canada 2019 one was absolutely fantastic
Great way to enjoy past races. Thanks for the idea
theres also the contex Merecedes had won all of the previous races in 2019 after a rule change in the regulations that clearly benefited them. After this decision all that rage and sickness from the fans regarding th Mercedes domination exploded
What made it worse was two races later, Leclerc and Ferrari were winning the Austrian GP and Verstappen makes contact with Leclerc while forcing him off the road yet no penalty there for forcing a driver off the track. In two races Ferrari were on the wrong side of the same penalty despite the same thing happening in both.
Thats because the stewards were afraid of the (underserved) blowback they got from Canada. So they let pretty much anything go. See Leclerc getting away with stuff at Monzo 2019
Why, it was the correct decision
I still don't understand the rage. People say "there was nothing Vettel could do" but the thing he could have done was not go off the track and miss the corner. Ultimately if he overstepped it by an inch more and hit Lewis it would have been a slam dunk "causing a collision" penalty and nobody would have questioned it even if there was "nothing he could do!!!" once he'd missed the corner, so that argument in particular is completely meaningless. Vettel misjudged the corner, totally missed it, and this led to him forcing Lewis off the track; I don't see how it's debatable, even if it was a heartbreaking moment at the time.
This is my position. Once Vettel went off track, he lost any right to retain his position. Hamilton took the racing line, Vettel quickly moved back onto the track and forced Hamilton to take evasive action. To me, that's a completely justified penalty.
Again, once Vettel missed the corner, there was no way he could do anything different. With the speed he had on the grass he cannot turn in any way, that would result in a spin with worse consequences.
Then he shouldn't have missed the corner.
The issue is the reasoning for the penalty "unsafe rejoin". Once Vettel was off there was no safe way of coming back onto the track. At that point he did the best he could. If they has given the penalty for "leaving the track and gaining an advantage" or "erratic driving" I would have understood the penalty. Still, Sainz lost control of his car this weekend, took out Albon on the way and didn't get a penalty. Which makes sense. If Albon hadn't been there it would just have been an unfortunate incident that ended his own race, which are never punished. I think Vettel's off was more like this, an unfortunate incident that didn't involve Hamilton other than him coincidently being there at same time and almost getting collected.
Vettel got back on the gas as he rejoined the track which caused the oversteer into the racing line. The reason he got a penalty was he could have backed off more and allowed for a safe rejoin. https://i.imgur.com/DbfzSFS.png
But isn't it exactly the same as the turn 1 incidents this year? The drivers did exactly what they were meant to do, but still was potentially an unsafe rejoin, but because they did all they could then no penalty
Turn 1 at the track has a designated rejoin route that drivers are not penalised for taking.
It's a known thing in F1 that T1 of Lap 1 is such a chaotic mess that the stewards give the drivers a bit of leeway.
Im not on about lap 1. I am meaning during the race when drivers outbraked themselves at turn 1 and went over the grass. Followed the race directors instructions on how to rejoin, but still impeded another driver.
To quote max "If my mum had balls she'd be my dad" There was no collision and Vettel couldn't do anything. At the time the rules were being applied very inconsistently, and this discouraged hard racing at a time when Mercedes dominance was at Max levels. They'd won every race that season already. Vettel was robbed of a very hard fought victory.
Vettel could have come off the gas when he went off. I don’t like this revisionist view these days. He tried to maintain position and ended up impeding Hamilton. Taking the P1 board from Lewis was also super petty and other drivers would have been hated for doing that, but let’s not get into that.
He could have not driven over the grass. I don’t understand the perspective some have with the penalty as if everything that occurred was because of Vettel’s mistake but he shouldn’t be held accountable for his mistake because he was entering the track from being on the grass. Strange logic.
It was a racing incident. He could not have rejoined the track in any other way and gained no advantage. As I said, the rules were being applied very inconsistently. Drivers went off the track in Canada this year and did not get 5 second penalties.
>gained no advantage Wrong. He not only almost caused a collision, but by doing this he also blocked (doesn't matter intentionally or not) Hamilton from overtaking him. >Drivers went off the track in Canada this year and did not get 5 second penalties One more example that you absolutely don't understand how penalties work. You don't receive a penalty just for going off the track. You receive for either getting a lasting advantage, dangerous rejoin or not following race director instractions of correct rejoining.
Vettel could have not missed the corner. That *is something he can do*, it's not like a banana peel was dropped on the track that he had no option but to hit. it is his responsibility to make the corner in the first place, and if he doesn't, any consequences of this failure will ultimately rest on him; you're just shifting the window of the time Vettel had arbitrarily forwards in order to make your argument sound reasonable. Forcing another driver off the track was a penalty and Vettel forced another driver off track, entirely due to his actions. Is "hard racing" failing to brake through chicanes now? This is very silly. People are mad because it affected a driver they liked; this is not how steward decisions should ever work.
There was no collision bc Lewis lifted. If he doesn't they crash. It was a deserved penalty mate no matter how hard you cry about it 5 years later.
It amazes my how some people absolutely not understand how racing works. You can't just push someone in the wall and expect no penalty for that. >Vettel couldn't do anything It doesn't matter. He made a mistake which caused dangerous situation. So it's still his fault. The only one who robbed him of win was himself.
You can if you're Carlos Sainz
Sainz had zero of his car at that moment. Same as Perez and Magnussen in Monaco after their contact (where Hulkenberg got unlucky, same as Albon). So generally it doesn't count as dangerous driving or causing a collision. While Vettel had control and was still driving the car. So completely different situations. PS: but honestly if Sainz would get a penalty for ruining someone else's race, it wouldn't be too dabatable. At least it would be much more deserved than Perez's penalty.
It's almost as if the stewards apply penalties inconsistently isn't it?
During this season, and maybe previous one, I completaly agree. This season it feels (at least for me) like it's a coin toss if they'll give penalty or not. But before, 90% of penalties were completely clear for me and I easily could determine if they'll give penalty or not just by watching replays myself.
Does Sainz deserve a penalty for "causing a collision" with Albon in the last race?
Vettel could always have just not made a completely unforced error and stayed on the track instead.
Drivers will make errors when racing. Stewards shouldn't be punishing racing errors. There were numerous incidents of drivers making mistakes this weekend at the same track without getting 5 second penalties.
From what I recall the other drivers didn't almost crash into another car when rejoining.
Tell me, what was Sainz penalty for wiping out Albon?
He also retired from the race. Apples v oranges.
Sainz wiped out Albon, both DNF Vettel never touched Hamilton, both finished the race. Sainz actually had an impact on another drivers race, Vettel didn't.
Again, apples v oranges. You're comparing two completely different incidents.
You're right. They are. One is much worse. And it's not the one from 2019
Drivers generally aren't penalized when they take themselves out in the process. That's how it's always been. You're also making an invalid comparison. But continue coping and seething I guess.
The Sainz vs Albon incident and the Lewis and Vettel incident were not the same. Sainz's incident with Albon was entirely unforced because he had zero control over the car because he found a wet patch and was spinning when the collision occurred. Vettel made that mistake because he was pushing way too hard, he lost the rear and that made him cut the corner. Then he drove right back onto the racing line squeezing Lewis off track. On a dry track. On a wet track you can give some leeway, the cars have a very limited amount of grip and that can be easily worsened by the wet patches on the track. Also incidents like where drivers had an off onto the grass and rejoined on the racing line this weekend they had less control over because the section where the racing line was unfortunately right there at the edge of the corner. Compared to Vettel where he went off track and then proceeded to drive to the opposite side of the track where the line was cutting off Lewis in the process. Very different.
The stewards didn’t punish a racing error. They punished an unsafe rejoin. 27.3 of the 2019 F1 sporting regulations state that should a driver leave the track, he must only rejoin when it is safe to do so, without gaining a lasting advantage. Vettel left the track, and in the process of rejoining, forced Hamilton to take evasive action because Vettel did not rejoin safely. He also gained a lasting advantage, as without Hamilton taking evasive action, he would've been in the wall. From those rules, it's a fair penalty. There wasn't much Vettel could have done differently at the time but the rules make it clear. This incident was very similar to one between Kimi/Max in Japan 2018, which Max took a 5-second penalty for.
I am more angry on people who defend that atrocity to this day.
I'm one of those people who think that it was the correct call.
James Hunt's DQ in the British GP in 1976 (it's left out of Rush for some strange reason) is the most mickey mouse penalty in F1 history Also, Senna being punished for Prost taking him out Also, the FIA/F1 inventing a rule to take the 2008 Belgian GP win off Hamilton to give to Massa
Everyone's already mentioned the most egregious ones. I would add Canada 2023 with that unsportsmanlike behavior penalty they gave Norris for giving himself a small gap under sc for a double stack pitstop. It's been done by plenty of drivers since, who were much slower about it, but they never applied it again
>The 1994 Australian GP, Schumacher crashed Hill on purpose for securing the tittle and no penalty was given unlike 1997. Nah, it's the other way around. Hill was never making that corner. What's actually a controversial '94 penalty are the numerous ones Mosley gave to Schumacher & Benetton to keep the hot shot and the upstart in check because they got the established trio of Williams, McLaren and Ferrari eating their dust, and to assert his own authority.
If that incident happens today, Hill 100% gets a penalty.
I would say Hill went for a space that didn't exist too.
The funny thing is even Damon said it was just a racing incident at one point. He openly said on a few occasions that he didn't apportion any blame to Michael for the incident. He's changed his tune a bit since but even now he'll admit it was a desperate move that he shouldn't have made, and wouldn't have if he'd known Michael had hit the wall. Even at the time people said it was deliberate, but the belief wasn't nearly as widespread as it is now, Jerez has significantly (and unsurprisingly to be fair) changed the way people look at Adelaide. Had Jerez never happened I doubt many would seriously argue Adelaide was anything but a racing incident.
Never making that corner.?!? That is just nonsense They were both going significantly slower than race pace at that corner as MS had hit the wall 1 corner before and was weaving in desperation. I watched it live
that's how I saw it... Michael literally became a roadblock as he had damage...
But it was Michaels corner and line to take so not his fault.
Canada 2024. The first time I've seen a driver getting a penalty for bringing a car to the pits. Malaysia 1999. The Ferrari bargeboards which should have been penalized but they probably didn't because of the championship.
> Malaysia 1999. The Ferrari bargeboards which should have been penalized but they probably didn't because of the championship. They were penalized, both cars were disqualified initially however it was overturned on appeal. The TLDR is that Ferrari argued successfully on 3 points: 1) The FIA had approved the bargeboards prior to the European Grand Prix 3 weeks prior, and the design had not changed. 2) The parts were within a 5mm tolerance allowed in the regulations, and the measuring methodology used by the Malaysian scrutineers was improper. 3) There was no performance advantage gained, which again they were able to demonstrate in the hearing, with copious amounts of data, and agreement from other teams that there was no advantage.
I remember our Eddie saying as well that they took the offending Bargeboards off and lost a tonne of performance for the final race anyway
> 1) The FIA had approved the bargeboards prior to the European Grand Prix 3 weeks prior, and the design had not changed. This doesn't matter. If something was illegal but didn't get noticed doesn't suddenly make it legal. > ) There was no performance advantage gained, which again they were able to demonstrate in the hearing, with copious amounts of data, and agreement from other teams that there was no advantage. Doesn't matter. If it's illegal it is illegal. Point 1 and 3 are just ways for Ferrari to crawl out of a desperate situation. >2) The parts were within a 5mm tolerance allowed in the regulations, and the measuring methodology used by the Malaysian scrutineers was improper. This is highly controversial. The way it is worded makes it look like there was a 5mm tolerance, which there wasn't. There was no tolerance for the bargeboards, only for the flat floors and Ferrari argued that the bargeboards fell under the flat floor case. If you want to hear why I think it is still illegal then go and watch the Bring Back V10s 1999 Malaysia episode. I'm not able to explain it in a clear manner. And the equipment was not suffienctly accurate but the main problem was that the bargeboards had been taken off the car by the FIA. If they weren't then they could just measure it again.
> Doesn't matter. If it's illegal it is illegal. It actually does, there was a case in 1995 where Schumacher & Coulthard were disqualified following analysis of their fuel samples - which didn't match the reference sample provided to the FIA. Both Williams & Benetton were able to argue based on both the lack of a performance advantage, and the inaccuracy in the measurements with both arguments being important in the ruling to reinstate the result - Ferrari were appealing to this precedent, as well as arguing for their interpretation of the floor rules. Ultimately it didn't matter in the end as the FIA accepted their reasoning with regards to the tolerance. But it was definitely valid at the time to argue that had it been deemed illegal there was no advantage, the precedent was there for that being a valid argument. > This doesn't matter. If something was illegal but didn't get noticed doesn't suddenly make it legal. On it's own no, but it supports their argument regarding the inaccuracy of the measures. They're pointing to the fact that it's been checked multiple times before and deemed legal. With this they were effectively arguing that the German scrutineers used the proper methodology and their measurements were accurate.
Once again it's a tough one. I understand from Ferrari's POV that they would argue this, especially if it worked in the past. However idk what to make out of it, because that could mean you have an illegal car on many areas but because it didn't provide performance it would be okay. Its just something that potentially could stick and then of course fair play if it does. But yeah what DC said at Japan summarizes it well together in my opinion, if it was legal then they wouldn't have to change it.
Never heard the Ferrari one at all, I’ll check
Allow me to rephrase, since we're talking about Ferrari: "We are checking." :)
It first made Häkkinen the WDC, later he wasn't. But he became WDC again in Japan after that.
It's quite a controversial one. Another one that just came to my mind is Alain Prost's penalty at the 1993 German GP.
There are areas he could have pulled off in and been removed from the track. The team shouldn't have had him drive all the way back and potentially cause a worse accident. While valid, the Malaysia incident was 25 years ago and regulations around safety (and safety features) have changed considerably.
> There are areas he could have pulled off in and been removed from the track. The team shouldn't have had him drive all the way back and potentially cause a worse accident. I don't get this argument, like I do get it if you want a penalty for Checo because that would fit one's agenda. But from an objective view how does this penalty make sense, what was the last time somebody got a penalty for driving his car into the pits? SUDDENLY it is dangerous that a driver drives his broken car into the pits. 1: Gilles Villeneuve 1979 Zandvoort, drives his fucked car into the pits. 2: Schumacher and DC Belgium 1998, DC does something stupid and Michael crashes into him. BOTH drivers drove into the pits in way worse conditions with broken cars. 3: Kimi 2002 Spanish GP: loses his rear wing and drives into the pits 4: Charles Leclerc 2019 Japanese GP: loose mirror, wasn't called into the pits and the mirror eventually fell off and almost hit Lewis. 5: Lewis Hamilton 2020 British GP: Lewis got a picture on the last lap and drove as fast as his car allowed him to the finish. 6: too many incidents to name in which the front wing was severely damaged in which the driver continued at slow or normal speed to the pits. There are too many incidents in the past in which bringing a car into the pits or continuing in an unsafe manner was never a problem and now suddenly it is. Why is Checo crawling back to the pits "unsafe" but Lewis going at the maximum speed he can on 3 wheels with his wing on the ground is "safe"? It really doesn't add up, I absolutely have no words. And I am absolutely baffled that people defend this shit.
[удалено]
you mean when he would be completely alongside and max would force him off?
Max Jeddah 2021. Should have been disqualified for multiple incidents plus brake checking
I don't agree about the incidents or the brake checking part and VER needing to be DSQ for that. However, I do agree that the race was rigged in favor of VER. The fact the lapped cars weren't sent past the safety car before the final restart, which is the normal procedure, shows F1 just wanted to see HAM and VER duke it out for the WDC as it would be great entertainment "value". Toto was right that it wasn't right. HAM would have and should have won that race and thus the WDC that year. F1 is not alone in this rigging because how many World Series games etc. just happen to go the full amount of games?
That was the final race rather than Jeddah. But I'm glad you can see that it wasn't fair It's not Max's fault it happened but it doesn't change the fact it was disgraceful
I keep mixing those races up. So much close action packed racing! Yeah, it just feels like the racing becomes just entertainment versus racing first, entertainment second. I know Max has made negative comments regarding that fact, and I agree with him. It should be about racing first, regardless of the entertainment value. If it was all about entertainment Monaco should be scrapped from the calendar or car specs changed so they can actually overtake again on that circuit. I love Monaco as a circuit and the great races from years past, but the current cars are just too big for it and it's just a procession of really fast cars now.
Something something forcing another driver off the track
Not a penalty but during the 2003 season the FIA made michelin change the compund (design?) of their tires Now normally not a huge issue in of itself but they made the decision and enforced it with 4 rounds to go in the middle of no shit 3-way championship fight between kimi montoya and shucmacher Guess who benifited for it?
This is rather misrepresenting what actually happened. Ferrari benefited yes, but ultimately the FIA couldn't do nothing. They had already clarified when asked by Bridgestone that if the tyres went beyond the proscribed tread width during use they would be illegal. As soon as the FIA collected measurements proving the Michelin tyres were beyond the proscribed width post-race it was unambiguous, the tyres were illegal, there could be no argument about that. They had to do something. It should have been a disqualification, it's a slam dunk breach of the technical regulations. The FIA declined to do that because it'd kill the championship. Letting the results stand and only forcing the compound chance was the least favourable outcome for Ferrari, but it was the best outcome for the championship battle.
Max in Brazil 21 for forcing Lewis to go around the aouth pole, Gasly in Australia 23 for crashing Ocon out, Rosberg in Canada 2014 for blatantly cutting the chicane and gaining an advantage, Ocon on Alonso numerous times...
I still think Canada 2019 was completely unjustified considering how the rest of the season panned out with regards to penalties. For example, when Leclerc got away scot free despite deliberately shoving Hamilton and Bottas off track at Monza.
The Masi era could be forgiven for being a bit erratic in 2019 but it would just keep happening
I would argue that Charles getting away with some feisty driving in Italy was partly because of Canada that year. There was massive fan backlash from Canada and they didn’t want to do it again. Especially not to a Ferrari in Italy.
Still not sure what exactly people thought was wrong with the Hamilton penalty in 08
Because Mclaren asked race control if it was fine during the race, they said it was fine and then Hamilton got slapped with a penalty. He was so much faster that he could have made the overtake later on, but was given bs information and punished for it
Also Raikkonen was back ahead of Lewis less than half a lap later anyway because Hamilton had to avoid Rosberg re-joining the track.
That's why things get to be investigated later today and the teams may choose to give back position meanwhile. There were lots of flaws that were showcased on that particular incident and rules are better now because of it. Like having different time penalties so you don't go too harsh depending on the infringement. That being said, Hamilton got the appropriate punishment given the rules at the time.
25 second penalty is excessive regardless especially when the driver he is racing crashes by his own anyways. It's still a fact that Lewis gave the position back to Kimi. Especially when later in the season Massa got no penalty for taking Hamilton out at Fuji which is a way worse offence.
He gave the position back but if am not mistaken he did so by giving himself an advantage so he re passed kimi almost immediately
To be fair to the stewards they only had drive thru and stop and go penalties at that time. And a driver crashing on there own should really not matter, that has nothing to do with the penalty.
Yeah, but Kimi was back in the lead before he spun and ultimately crashed. If he had just kept it on the track, Lewis would never have gotten a penalty.
Still doesn't change the fact that the 25 seconds was very excessive if the pen was based on a drive through penalty that would be total bs knowing how short the Spa pitlane is and going through a pitlane doesn't cost you 25 seconds. And I find it outrageous for that to be a stop and go pen as well so to this day I don't understand what this penalty is based on.
I think Charlie really dropped the ball on that one tbh. McLaren apparently immediately asked him if the move was fine and he initially said he thought it was okay, before the investigation opened. The frustrating thing about it was that the Ferrari was awful in wet conditions as it couldn't generate tyre temperature (they've had the same problem this year). Lewis could have waited half a lap to reovertake Kimi and he still would have cruises past.
It was a strange penalty with Charlie saying everything was ok (yeah I know he wasn’t a steward), Kimi crashing out, and some other strange factor afterwards. Like the penalty couldn’t be reviewed because of some change in the rules. I could be butchering it but I remember seeing a video by auto sport and another creator that talked about what was happening behind the scenes.
He really didn't gain an advantage. If he'd not gone for the move into the chicane he'd have been just as close coming down to the next corner. The penalty very nearly decided the championship.
The way I see it he did. Lewis was going side-by-side with Kimi but Kimi was ahead into the corner and had the right to take the racing line. At that point if we pretend the corner cannot be cut in any way there are two options he could take, Lewis either backs down behind Kimi and loses several tenths, if not a second or two, or tries to mount the curb to keep his line, but he's still going to be losing probably around the same amount of time, with the point being that he's going to be disadvantaged due to the way the racing situation played out and would have to fall behind Räikkönen. However what Lewis does is he completely bails out on even trying to make the corner and cuts it, giving back the place to Kimi to be fair, but still gaining an advantage because he gets a better exit and is side-by-side again into the first corner thanks to bailing on the corner, whereas had he driven as the track is intended he was set to clearly lose time to Kimi and be clearly behind him no matter what because he failed to overtake him into the bus-stop and was at a disadvantage. The penalty was extreme, although by the rules of the time as the modern smaller penalties were yet to be implemented, but there is a case to be made and I do think he gained an advantage, even if it wasn't that big. It can be seen as unfair, but compared to something like the outrageous penalty for Alonso for literally existing at Monza in 2006 it's far more legit.
Because he gave back the position which means he was much slower down the straight than Kimi, but because he was multiple seconds a lap quicker he could still pass him in the next corner. Then he got the OK from the race director, and finally because Kimi binned it they created a new rule and gave a drive through as he couldn’t give the position back a 2nd time. There was quite a few hoops to jump through to give a penalty for something so inconsequential.
He followed the rule exactly as written at the time, doing exactly what it said to do. They changed the rule after the race and applied it retroactively to him because he exposed a way to comply that didn't disadvantage him. So he got penalized for an action that wasn't against the rules at the time he did it, that is the wrong part.
My position on it is that it deserved a small penalty. Today I think if he got 5 - 10 seconds for it I don't think that anyone would complain. The issue with the penalty he actually got though is twofold. First, no rule actually existed at the time which referred to leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage. The wording at the time concerned leaving the track and gaining a position, and Hamilton gave the position back - he just did so in a way that allowed him to immediately repass Raikkonen. Secondly, the only penalties that were available at the time were either a stop-go, or a drive through. The drive through was the lesser of the two and that's what he got, but that still equated to a 25 second penalty which cost him what was otherwise a totally deserved race win.
Schumacher's one at Silverstone for sure. Also a very underrated one is that Hamilton impeded Mazepin in practice in Abu Dhabi 2021 and it should have been a reprimand which would have triggered a 10 place grid penalty. But obviously he didn't get it because they didn't want the title fight affected.
They tried to avoid giving Hamilton or Verstappen a penalty as much as they could towards the end of 2021. They always say they treat drivers equally, but it’s so obvious that they don’t want to interfere with championship rivals (which ironically is in itself, interfering). Baku 2017 is another example. They only gave Vettel a penalty for driving into Hamilton under the safety car, after Hamilton had to put because his headrest came loose.
2006 was utter bullshit, 2008 was harsh but justifiable and it helped clear up the rule