Why having characters in F1 comes at a cost

Suppose Sebastian Vettel had retired from the Mexican Grand Prix and, for whatever reason, punched a marshal while being helped away from the car.

Quite rightly, there would be outrage. There would be apologies, and charges sporting and possibly even criminal - justifiably so for an act of violence. Vettel certainly wouldn't be lauded for what he did.

That's not to diminish what he did do in Mexico - hurling abuse at what might be termed 'the referee' is an offence in any sport, and he was fortunate to escape without censure. That he didn't largely seems to be down to apologising to Charlie Whiting after the race, combined with the pleasantly retro means of sending a letter of apology to FIA president Jean Todt.

Both circumstances - one real, one fictional - rightly would lead to condemnation and potential punishment. But there are double standards at play here by some of those most outraged by what happened.

After all, how many times do we hear it lamented that drivers are 'too PR' nowadays? How many times do people complain of a lack of 'characters'? How many times are the heroes of the past held up as far better than the bland, characterless heroes of today? How many times do we hear people asking for authentic, raw characters who let their emotions show?

While swearing over the radio is perhaps not the most endearing way to show your emotions, it is unquestionably not a PR move. It's unquestionably authentic.

Let's take James Hunt. Recently, the 40th anniversary of his world championship was celebrated and everybody enjoyed looking back on this charismatic and, in many ways, underrated driver.

Hunt was a product of his time, so this is not about attacking him. But a quick search on YouTube will reveal two altercations with marshals, one at Mosport Park in 1977 when he briefly floored one (albeit followed up by an immediate apology) and another at Monaco in '75 after a collision at Mirabeau with Patrick Depailler. The latter was more of a flail than a punch, but it's in the same ballpark.

It's not uncommon to see people harking back to this kind of behaviour, lauding a driver with such rough edges. Hunt was a product of an era when, to employ a phrase that tends to be used as a positive but really should now be obsolete, 'men were men'.

Yes, Hunt's actions were in the heat of the moment, and in that regard understandable. So, too, were Vettel's. But such circumstances don't change the nature of the offence, even if it does mean there should at least be a little more understanding of the perpetrator's state of mind.

After all, most drivers have to set aside their emotions during a grand prix weekend. And often it's only when something goes badly wrong that they end up venting pent-up feelings. It happens to the best of us and to pretend otherwise is sanctimonious.

"That's quite extreme," said Nico Hulkenberg when asked about Vettel's radio messages after the Mexican GP. "I'm sure Charlie is not that impressed.

"But of course you go sometimes, 'What an idiot!', but usually they cut it down [for broadcast]. But it does happen in the heat of the race.

"You guys sit in the media centre, or the people are at home, but at 300km/h everything is on the limit and if you try hard but something doesn't go fair or right, you just feel like, 'Arrrrrgggggghhhhhh!'. Sometimes you have to let it out."

Effectively, this is what people are asking for. Fine, you can argue that you don't want drivers to be excessively volatile or dangerous. But you cannot claim you want unpredictable, charismatic, straight-talking, honest and willing-to-say-the-wrong-thing characters, but stipulate that freedom can only exist within the very specific boundaries you set.

You know what that's called? It's called PR. So to demand that is the same proscriptive behaviour being railed against. As is often the case, people ask for things, then don't like the result. Not everybody criticising Vettel is also asking for drivers to be let off the leash to that extent, and their position is valid, but those who combine that with wanting 'authenticity' are on dangerous ground.

In fact, reacting with too much opprobrium actually discourages drivers from being honest, even over the radio. Take Max Verstappen, who admitted in the build-up to the Mexican Grand Prix that he was going to tone down his radio messages.

Daniel Ricciardo showed that Verstappen isn't the only driver unwilling to give too much away over the radio.

"In the moment it's easy to just press that radio button and start saying a whole lot of things, but we know it can get broadcast, trust me," said Ricciardo.

"I would say twice as much, but a lot of the time I wait and maybe say a few things to myself and then press the radio button."

The reason for this caution is not primarily the corporate concerns of teams and sponsors, but because of the reaction from the public. That's the root cause, and is what the sponsors are concerned about. The team backers are selling to the public and if they rail against their 'ambassadors', that's a bad thing.

None of this means drivers should be allowed to say what they want without criticism - that's not the point. Vettel is an ambassador not just for those paying him, but for the whole of F1 and should know better. But either you want raw, direct, say-what-they-think drivers or you don't. The whole point of authenticity is that it's uncensored.

It's a tightrope for drivers to walk. Be bland and everyone complains about the lack of character, but do almost anything that shows character - and that could be anything, obscenities are hardly the only way to do that - and criticism always follows. Unlike in the Vettel case, the criticism is often groundless.

It's difficult for professional grand prix drivers to get things right. For most, not enough people actually care for it to be a big deal. Marcus Ericsson or Pascal Wehrlein, to pick two names at random, don't get noticed enough for it to be a problem.

But if you are Lewis Hamilton, Vettel, Fernando Alonso - basically, any of the genuine star names - you can have serious problems.

All are aware of their responsibilities to the public, their employers and the sport, and all take that seriously.

It's possible Vettel was even falling back on the old staple of drivers littering their radio transmissions with obscenities to ensure they didn't get played on the TV coverage, something that judicious use of the bleep machine has got around.

Which, frankly, is hardly a cutting-edge technology the drivers would not have been able to anticipate.

This also raises the question of FOM's role. The radio transmissions are included in the broadcasts for two reasons: as a way to remind everyone that there are human beings in the cars with real characters, and to make the broadcast more exciting and sensational. Vettel's radio comments certainly ticked the sensational box.

So you can also legitimately question whether FOM should have included the transmissions in their coverage, given the content. TV is the primary access point for most, so if Vettel swearing is bad for grand prix racing, so too is playing it to the world.

Once that has been done, it becomes an obligation for outlets like Autosport to report it (that's a responsibility FOM doesn't have when it's putting together the coverage) and the whole thing becomes a big story.

In football, the pitchside microphones regularly pick up swearing from players and the crowd. Very occasionally the broadcaster apologises for it, usually it lets it go. But they never replay it, bleeped or unbleeped.

That doesn't mean it's FOM's fault, fundamentally, but it does show that this is more complicated than a driver using obscene language on what might be termed a semi-private channel. Again, taking football as an example, there are occasions where players and managers are censured for saying things that are never played to the public even when caught on film.

Vettel shouldn't have done it, and shouldn't be celebrated for it. But everyone also has to realise that rough edges and 'character' come at a cost. Either you want 'PR', or you don't.

There's no halfway house where you get a slice of authenticity dictated by your sensibilities.