Red Bull has been isolated from F1′s other teams, as the FIA is asked to step in and police their cost-cutting efforts.
Last year, there remained suspicions the energy drink owned team – the winner of the past two world championships – flouted the ‘resource restriction agreement’ (RRA).

But the agreement was only an initiative of the teams’ trade union FOTA, which has now essentially collapsed.

Moreover, the agreement includes only financial sanctions for breaches, and Red Bull was never penalised anyway — Ferrari’s Luca di Montezemolo said recently he didn’t push the issue “Because I didn’t want it to be an excuse for our performance”.

A letter has now been addressed to FIA president Jean Todt requesting that the governing body step in and make the RRA an official sporting regulation.

Breaches would therefore carry a sporting sanction, such as the loss of points, or race bans.

“Yes, it (the letter) was unanimous. Most of the teams have signed it,” said Lotus team boss Eric Boullier.

He would not, however, confirm the identity of the teams that did not sign.

But a report in the Kolner Express newspaper claims “only two teams did not sign: Red Bull and the sister team Toro Rosso”.

Max Mosley believes a title for Fernando Alonso with less than seven points ahead would be dangerous for Formula 1
If Fernando Alonso the world title this year did not win more than seven points ahead, then it would devalue the Formula 1, says the former FIA president Max Mosley. Thus the British refers to the change of place, the Ferrari at Hockenheim has been implemented, as Felipe Massa Alonso had to leave the victory. Although the team was then a penalty of $ 100,000 due to team orders, but there were other sanctions, although Mosley before the hearing before the World Motor Sport Council had meant there had to be penalized.

“I have a feeling that at least the extra points scored by Alonso overtaking Massa should be withdrawn,” Mosley told the BBC repeated now. “This is the absolute minimum, because if Alonso for some reason the World Cup less than the seven-point lead would gain, he has brought there, would devalue the World Cup. But this is a personal view ..”

Joan Villadelprat has warned Fernando Alonso to put a lid on his overt criticisms of F1′s governing body.

Spaniard Villadelprat, bidding to bring his Le Mans team Epsilon Euskadi onto the F1 grid next year, was referring to Alonso’s accusation that a mild penalty for Lewis Hamilton in Valencia last week amounted to FIA manipulation.

In his column for the El Pais newspaper, he said countryman Alonso might be excused for mouthing off in the immediate aftermath of the race, but should now quieten his attack or risk official sanctions.

“I think Alonso was heated and just out of the car,” he said.  “I can understand their anger because Ferrari thought this race was a turning point in their championship.

“I also believe the stewards failed to react as they should.  But I cannot say that Lewis Hamilton deserved a more severe penalty because it happened exactly as is in the regulations.

“But the reaction should have been much faster — (the stewards’ decision) took about 14 laps!  I suppose they waited so long because they were analysing it before giving a verdict.

“In any case, Fernando needs to be very careful about what he says, because these types of attacks are of no benefit and could even cost a penalty.

“But even more, it’s because I don’t think he really believes the stewards acted intentionally for Hamilton and against his own interest.

“I know that in times like these it is difficult to keep your head and your tongue cool, but Alonso needs to concentrate on his work, on getting his car on pole position and on stemming the difference that still separates Ferrari from Red Bull and McLaren,” added Villadelprat.

(GMM)

F1′s governing body is not expected to take action against Fernando Alonso or Ferrari.

The Italian team’s response to the outcome of the Valencia race has been incandescent, including Fernando Alonso saying Lewis Hamilton’s meagre treatment by the stewards amounted to “manipulation”.

Ferrari vice-president Piero Ferrari said the mere drive-through penalty for McLaren driver Hamilton’s overtaking of the safety car made the European GP a “false race”.

And reports on the team’s official website have quoted fans as saying Hamilton is a liar and a cheat, McLaren “thieves”, and the FIA a “Federation of clowns”.

British newspaper The Mirror correspondent Byron Young wrote on Twitter that in “Max Mosley’s day”, sanctions would now be likely, adding: “Are the FIA going to act or will Jean Todt dodge the first big F1 test of his presidency?”

According to sources on Monday, the FIA is not considering action.

Ferrari’s rage against the outcome of the European grand prix went from bad to worse on Monday.

With Fernando Alonso having accused the stewards of manipulating the Valencia race, the Italian team echoed the apparent view of some fans that Lewis Hamilton’s drive-through penalty for overtaking the safety car was a “scandal”.

But in another website report on Monday, Ferrari stepped up its attack, repeating the view of one fan that had hit out at “McLaren thieves” who were “up to their usual dirty tricks”.

Another fan said: “The FIA at Valencia showed it’s not entirely in charge of the events that it’s organising”, and yet another added: “Is this the latest version of Jean Todt?  Those who order and manipulate are always the same.”

Ferrari quoted another fan as saying: “Federation of clowns!  What help is a five-second penalty?  Useless and the usual English mafia!”

And another: “Enough with the help for Hamilton.  How can he lie and cheat and still get away scot-free?”

Mirror correspondent Byron Young wrote on Twitter that in “Max Mosley’s day”, there would be “sanctions” for accusing the FIA of fixing races.

When the rage intensified on Monday, he added: “Are the FIA going to act or will Jean Todt dodge the first big F1 test of his presidency?”

(GMM)

Note from the Editor: There were two titles for this piece, “Schumacher’s Karma catches up with him” or “Have FIA bungled with Schumacher penalty?” Either would have been appropriate, we chose the one we did because in the end it is perhaps more apt…

Sunday’s Monaco Grand Prix was overshadowed by an incident involving old sparring partners Michael Schumacher, and Fernando Alonso.

Due to the spectacular crash between Karun Chandhok and Jarno Trulli at Rascasse corner, the Safety Car was called upon 3 laps from the end. The flash point came when the German veteran slid up the inside of Alonso at the final Anthony Noghes corner after the Safety Car had peeled into the pitlane for the last time.

The Formula One paddock now finds itself in the situation where Schumacher has been given a retrospective 20 second penalty and dropped to 12th position in the final classification. Fernando Alonso was reinstated to his 6th position, and we head to Turkey with the Spaniard still in touch with the seemingly untouchable Red Bull duo of Mark Webber and Sebastian Vettel.

However, the justification for this penalisation is hard to distinguish. It is true that Article 40.13 states: “If the race ends while the Safety Car is deployed, it will enter the pitlane at the end of the last lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal without overtaking”. The clarity of this rule is not in question.

There have been previous examples of this rule being enforced. The Australian Grand Prix of 2009 being one such example, where the Brawn cars of Jenson Button and Rubens Barrichello led the field across the line after the Safety Car had pitted following an accident between Sebastian Vettel and Robert Kubica. In this case, the job of the trackside marshals was to signal to the drivers that there was to be no overtaking and that they were to stay in formation. This was signified by the continued use of yellow flags and Safety Car boards at each marshal post until the Start/Finish line.

Fast forward a year and five races, and we find ourselves in a similar situation. What seems incomprehensible is that following the end of the Safety Car period, green flags were waved and a green light was shown on the overhead light gantry of the last corner. Such a contradiction in actions seems confusing to say the least.

Under FIA Sporting Regulations, a green flag signifies “that any previous danger has been attended to. The track is now clear, and drivers may proceed at racing speed and may again overtake”. Why was this signal given? The green flag completely contradicted Article 40.13, and Schumacher acted accordingly.

Based on principle alone, a driver that sees a green flag or a green light is perfectly entitled to proceed at racing speed and make an attempt at an overtaking manoevre. It is worth noting that the Mercedes of Nico Rosberg also attempted an overtake after Alonso slid on the kerbs of the final corner, but was unable to.

Such a baffling decision decreases the credibility of the FIA stewarding panel, which had proved itself to be more than capable with a string of sound decisions so far in 2010. The accusation that Damon Hill was central to the decision-making procedure does not work, as his responsibility was to ensure a fair conclusion to any racing incidents. This was a decision based on the law of the FIA.

Neither is the common misconception that the stewards could have put Schumacher back into 7th position, as under Article 16.3 of the Sporting Regulations, only three possible sanctions are legally allowed; a drive-through penalty, a grid drop for the following race, or a ten-second stop and go penalty.

It appears that Schumacher has been penalised for a communication mix-up, which is why Mercedes have attempted to appeal the decision.
Based on the precedent set by the Lewis Hamilton decision at Spa in 2008, time penalties cannot be appealed. The only conceivable outcome for Mercedes is that they can lodge a protest of the result to the FIA. A 2,000 Euro fee is attached to this and is the only option that resembles an appeal procedure in this instance.

The two underlying themes are that the large reaction to this incident reflects more on the bland nature of the race itself, and that the nonsensical decisions taken by those working in this arm of the FIA are still commonplace. Perhaps if there was no need to interpret so widely the rules that are put forth by the FIA, decisions like this would not cause such debate. With the spectacle provided by the racing being put on the backburner, the spectacle of events off track have reared their ugly head once again.

Those who believe in Karma, your time has come.

(James Rossi)