i think Hamiltons (engine)brake checking was potentially much more dangerous.
It's so confusing to me that 5 days after the stewards categorically said Lewis DIDN'T do this (first mentioned in this thread by
@DQuaN a full 11 pages ago, and repeated a whole bunch of times after), that anyone can still think this happened.
I've never, ever heard the phrase "engine brake checking" used in motorsport. Maybe if Jean-Marie Balestre was still around (and Vettel was French) I could believe that could become a real penalty reason.
They shouldnt open up an issue that already closed. The penalty was already given. If they feel 10 seconds is too soft then they should have made it a post race investigation and dealt with it that way. Once the penalty is issued its case closed as far as I see it. Anything past this point is unfair.
As Buxton said in his blog, if the FIA decided to DSQ Vettel from Baku, then it wouldn't be an additional penalty, they would effectively be overruling the stewards' original one. It would make an exampleout of Vettel's behaviour, and draw a line under the matter.
It's still fun. How often do you get a GP that is still being discussed a week after the fact. Ongoing storylines is what makes F1 great.
In a "any publicity is good publicity" type way, I guess that's true......but how far does that go? Does more incidents like this = more fun? If it's making the sport better, should it be encouraged? What about the extreme example of F1 controversy - Spygate got a
lot of people talking, including plenty of non-F1 people. Was that great for F1?
I'd like to think it is possible for the sport to tell great stories without drivers having to behave like total eejits.