planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:29 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Canada 2019: Vettel Penalty
As per the rules, the penalty is correct and justified 29%  29%  [ 29 ]
As per the rules, the penalty is correct, but it seems harsh and shouldn't have been awarded 12%  12%  [ 12 ]
As per the rules, the penalty is correct. It seems harsh but it's consistent and that's what has been asked for 25%  25%  [ 25 ]
Penalty not justified at all, Vettel had no way to comply with what the rules state 29%  29%  [ 29 ]
Problem is the rules, not the stewards 4%  4%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 99
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1241
Location: UK
Siao7 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Yes, not worthy of a penalty though, for a number of reasons.

1. He was not in control of his car when he rejoined
2. The decision is inconsistent with past incidents of similar nature

This is a textbook definition of a racing incident.

90% is an estimate/figure of speech. The only people who agree with the penalty are Rosberg (Mercedes ambassador) and Palmer. The people who disagree are Ricciardo, Webber, Chandok, Andretti, Mansell, Brundle, Wurz, and there are more I can’t remember.


1) Are you ignoring the most recent and most similar incident between MV and KR in Hungary?

2) I'll remake my point that the two most RECENT ex-drivers support the sanction, its the current interpretation we are working with.

3) None of this is really relevant since if Vettel makes no error, there is no incident.


Button's last race was after Rosberg's and he said the penalty was harsh and it was a racing incident! Just saying!!!


Yep, I get that, its not definitive by any means, I'm just supporting my argument that this is a recent drive for safety and the nanny state. We have the rest of the season to see if its true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
thermal wrote:
I think the function of the stewards is to penalize flagrantly unsafe moves not honest mistakes as result of hard racing. What happened at #CanadaGp is not acceptable at this level of our great sport. @F1

https://twitter.com/MarioAndretti/statu ... 2631928832
I understand Mario does not believe that Vettel squeezed Hamilton deliberately, as the stewards are supposed to have concluded. Since we haven't seen proof it was deliberate, I can only agree with Mario.

No it wasn't deliberate whilst Vettel was looking in his mirror at the time?
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

I've not read the report but apparently he was looking in his mirror at the same time as opening the steering towards Hamilton's car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2891
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
thermal wrote:
I think the function of the stewards is to penalize flagrantly unsafe moves not honest mistakes as result of hard racing. What happened at #CanadaGp is not acceptable at this level of our great sport. @F1

https://twitter.com/MarioAndretti/statu ... 2631928832
I understand Mario does not believe that Vettel squeezed Hamilton deliberately, as the stewards are supposed to have concluded. Since we haven't seen proof it was deliberate, I can only agree with Mario.

No it wasn't deliberate whilst Vettel was looking in his mirror at the time?
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

This whole mirror business - was he actually looking in the mirror? Is it possible that his head may have been inclined that way for another reason? Just asking...


Like what? Enjoying the scenery? So piles back onto the track, knows Hamilton was right behind him when he went off, needs to get back on line and go to the left, ignores where he is going, ignores his mirrors, but decides to look at something else to his right? And purely by accident finds himself in the perfect position to block the guy behind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
thermal wrote:
I think the function of the stewards is to penalize flagrantly unsafe moves not honest mistakes as result of hard racing. What happened at #CanadaGp is not acceptable at this level of our great sport. @F1

https://twitter.com/MarioAndretti/statu ... 2631928832
I understand Mario does not believe that Vettel squeezed Hamilton deliberately, as the stewards are supposed to have concluded. Since we haven't seen proof it was deliberate, I can only agree with Mario.

No it wasn't deliberate whilst Vettel was looking in his mirror at the time?
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

This whole mirror business - was he actually looking in the mirror? Is it possible that his head may have been inclined that way for another reason? Just asking...

There is no other reason for him to do that normally you look straight ahead, any driver that is squeezing a car whilst knowing that the car behind has a slight overlap is going to be looking in the mirror to control the squeeze, Vettel doesn't want to be hitting Hamilton's car because it might damage his car and cost him the win.

It was part of the evidence against Vettel that he was looking in his mirror whilst opening his steering in order to give Hamilton less room.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
Option or Prime wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Yes, not worthy of a penalty though, for a number of reasons.

1. He was not in control of his car when he rejoined
2. The decision is inconsistent with past incidents of similar nature

This is a textbook definition of a racing incident.

90% is an estimate/figure of speech. The only people who agree with the penalty are Rosberg (Mercedes ambassador) and Palmer. The people who disagree are Ricciardo, Webber, Chandok, Andretti, Mansell, Brundle, Wurz, and there are more I can’t remember.


1) Are you ignoring the most recent and most similar incident between MV and KR in Hungary?

2) I'll remake my point that the two most RECENT ex-drivers support the sanction, its the current interpretation we are working with.

3) None of this is really relevant since if Vettel makes no error, there is no incident.


Button's last race was after Rosberg's and he said the penalty was harsh and it was a racing incident! Just saying!!!


Yep, I get that, its not definitive by any means, I'm just supporting my argument that this is a recent drive for safety and the nanny state. We have the rest of the season to see if its true.


I know, it was a bit of banter, hence the exclamation marks. Your point is well made


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
thermal wrote:
I think the function of the stewards is to penalize flagrantly unsafe moves not honest mistakes as result of hard racing. What happened at #CanadaGp is not acceptable at this level of our great sport. @F1

https://twitter.com/MarioAndretti/statu ... 2631928832
I understand Mario does not believe that Vettel squeezed Hamilton deliberately, as the stewards are supposed to have concluded. Since we haven't seen proof it was deliberate, I can only agree with Mario.

No it wasn't deliberate whilst Vettel was looking in his mirror at the time?
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

I've not read the report but apparently he was looking in his mirror at the same time as opening the steering towards Hamilton's car.
I have read the report, and looking in the mirrors isn't even mentioned. If they don't mention their reasoning for deciding the block was intentional, then - apart from the basic and necessary respect for their official opinion - that makes it more difficult for race fans to understand why this wasn't a racing incident.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No it wasn't deliberate whilst Vettel was looking in his mirror at the time?
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

I've not read the report but apparently he was looking in his mirror at the same time as opening the steering towards Hamilton's car.
I have read the report, and looking in the mirrors isn't even mentioned. If they don't mention their reasoning for deciding the block was intentional, then - apart from the basic and necessary respect for their official opinion - that makes it more difficult for race fans to understand why this wasn't a racing incident.

Not according to this explaining why the stewards penalised Vettel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akffYthMi70

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
thermal wrote:
I think the function of the stewards is to penalize flagrantly unsafe moves not honest mistakes as result of hard racing. What happened at #CanadaGp is not acceptable at this level of our great sport. @F1

https://twitter.com/MarioAndretti/statu ... 2631928832
I understand Mario does not believe that Vettel squeezed Hamilton deliberately, as the stewards are supposed to have concluded. Since we haven't seen proof it was deliberate, I can only agree with Mario.

No it wasn't deliberate whilst Vettel was looking in his mirror at the time?
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

This whole mirror business - was he actually looking in the mirror? Is it possible that his head may have been inclined that way for another reason? Just asking...
Quite possibly. But even if he was looking in his mirror, it may have been to try to ascertain how far behind Hamilton was. And if we take drivers seriously when explaining that they don't see much of others in their mirrors anyway, then I would argue that we should think about the benefit of the doubt.
Not knowing what these drivers can see in their mirrors, or even how they decide what they need to see in them (rear tyre management, for example), I find it difficult to make my mind as to what he saw, and to what extent this might be taken to prove intent.

The more I think about this incident, the more I regret the stewards didn't decide to speak to the drivers after the race, before deciding where to lay blame. I can't see what the problem would be with a delayed podium ceremony.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No it wasn't deliberate whilst Vettel was looking in his mirror at the time?
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

I've not read the report but apparently he was looking in his mirror at the same time as opening the steering towards Hamilton's car.
I have read the report, and looking in the mirrors isn't even mentioned. If they don't mention their reasoning for deciding the block was intentional, then - apart from the basic and necessary respect for their official opinion - that makes it more difficult for race fans to understand why this wasn't a racing incident.

Not according to this explaining why the stewards penalised Vettel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akffYthMi70
I have a subscription to the Autosport website, so I have read what they wrote about the stewards' rationale. But I see no proof in the video, just as I can't say we've seen proof in that explanation. That is not to say they are wrong, nor that I am right.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1916
What is most funny in this thread is the folks saying Vettel was on the power, if you have ever driven a kart or turned all the safety systems in a car off you will understand why he was on the power to counteract the oversteer and turning into it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Fiki wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No it wasn't deliberate whilst Vettel was looking in his mirror at the time?
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

This whole mirror business - was he actually looking in the mirror? Is it possible that his head may have been inclined that way for another reason? Just asking...
Quite possibly. But even if he was looking in his mirror, it may have been to try to ascertain how far behind Hamilton was. And if we take drivers seriously when explaining that they don't see much of others in their mirrors anyway, then I would argue that we should think about the benefit of the doubt.
Not knowing what these drivers can see in their mirrors, or even how they decide what they need to see in them (rear tyre management, for example), I find it difficult to make my mind as to what he saw, and to what extent this might be taken to prove intent.

The more I think about this incident, the more I regret the stewards didn't decide to speak to the drivers after the race, before deciding where to lay blame. I can't see what the problem would be with a delayed podium ceremony.

Decisions need taking during the race not after the race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Last edited by pokerman on Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

I've not read the report but apparently he was looking in his mirror at the same time as opening the steering towards Hamilton's car.
I have read the report, and looking in the mirrors isn't even mentioned. If they don't mention their reasoning for deciding the block was intentional, then - apart from the basic and necessary respect for their official opinion - that makes it more difficult for race fans to understand why this wasn't a racing incident.

Not according to this explaining why the stewards penalised Vettel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akffYthMi70
I have a subscription to the Autosport website, so I have read what they wrote about the stewards' rationale. But I see no proof in the video, just as I can't say we've seen proof in that explanation. That is not to say they are wrong, nor that I am right.

Well the stewards report is very basic, Vettel returned to the track in an unsafe manner causing his opponent to take avoiding action sort of thing, maybe that's all they need to state in the report?

Going forward from that the press have access to the stewards I would assume and given that why would they make false representation?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Rockie wrote:
What is most funny in this thread is the folks saying Vettel was on the power, if you have ever driven a kart or turned all the safety systems in a car off you will understand why he was on the power to counteract the oversteer and turning into it!

The onboard shows he went on the power and then got the oversteer moment.

I'm sure I read someone claiming he had experience of racing and Vettel would have some power on when on the grass to better control the car, Vettel said he kept off the power when on the grass, I'm not sure if such things are just made up?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6698
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
What is most funny in this thread is the folks saying Vettel was on the power, if you have ever driven a kart or turned all the safety systems in a car off you will understand why he was on the power to counteract the oversteer and turning into it!

The onboard shows he went on the power and then got the oversteer moment.

I'm sure I read someone claiming he had experience of racing and Vettel would have some power on when on the grass to better control the car, Vettel said he kept off the power when on the grass, I'm not sure if such things are just made up?

I've raced karts and it's just not black and white. It depends on the situation. Karts are not F1 cars anyway so I don't know how much you can translate that. When you put your right foot down in an F1 car, there are a lot more horses responding than in a go-kart.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No it wasn't deliberate whilst Vettel was looking in his mirror at the time?
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

This whole mirror business - was he actually looking in the mirror? Is it possible that his head may have been inclined that way for another reason? Just asking...
Quite possibly. But even if he was looking in his mirror, it may have been to try to ascertain how far behind Hamilton was. And if we take drivers seriously when explaining that they don't see much of others in their mirrors anyway, then I would argue that we should think about the benefit of the doubt.
Not knowing what these drivers can see in their mirrors, or even how they decide what they need to see in them (rear tyre management, for example), I find it difficult to make my mind as to what he saw, and to what extent this might be taken to prove intent.

The more I think about this incident, the more I regret the stewards didn't decide to speak to the drivers after the race, before deciding where to lay blame. I can't see what the problem would be with a delayed podium ceremony.

Decisions need taking during the race not after the race.
If things are clear-cut why not? But as this thread shows, that is not the case here.

As I wrote in the closed race thread, we didn't hear from race control during the race. As the rules state, it is the race controller's prerogative to offer the offender to give the advantage gained back. But I didn't hear such an offer during the race, which is why I brought it up.

Two possibilities allowed a potentially interesting race to the end; the offer to give up the advantage gained, or the decision by the stewards to investigate the incident in depth after the race, including an interview with the driver. (This result could also have upset a part of the fan base, but that is unavoidable.)
What actually happened was an in-depth investigation during the race which took quite some time, before ending the race with a verdict that is not undisputed.

I don't think the rules state every incident investigation must be concluded before the end of the race.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 106
If this happen on a different track with no wall, would it still have been a penalty?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1241
Location: UK
JamWalsh wrote:
If this happen on a different track with no wall, would it still have been a penalty?


In my view no, but in terms of the rules, the barrier makes no difference. It would still have been an unsafe return though. Hamilton could have moved over and probably passed, So it all becomes irrelevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 4:05 am
Posts: 348
Hamilton would have passed outside track limits and then we would be having another discussion lol...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 106
For me that's why I disagree with the penalty. I understand Vettel came back on dangerous but if its a penalty in Canada then it should be a penalty everywhere. I know there is different degrees and danger but dangerous is dangerous no?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1241
Location: UK
JamWalsh wrote:
For me that's why I disagree with the penalty. I understand Vettel came back on dangerous but if its a penalty in Canada then it should be a penalty everywhere. I know there is different degrees and danger but dangerous is dangerous no?


It would still have been a penalty though but what is the point? Hamilton would have been in front. No penalty, no admin, saves trees and more cyberspace for everyone!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm
Posts: 513
One of the more unpleasant legacies of this penalty is people on social media genuinely or sometimes wilfully misreading the regulations to try and write a narrative of the FIA being in cahoots with Mercedes.

Renault apparantly enquired about the radio message "you don't have a problem" that Merc gave to Hamilton on the formation lap. They didn't appeal but that hasn't stopped the bedwetters claiming it is evidence of illegal radio messages.

Likewise reports are suggesting that Hamilton's hydraulics were not entirely identical to how they had been in oarc ferme (after the rebuild) but they couldn't prove that they worked any differently so no penalty. Of course the reality is that in these situations the hydraulics only have to be similar and not providong a performance advantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
This whole mirror business - was he actually looking in the mirror? Is it possible that his head may have been inclined that way for another reason? Just asking...
Quite possibly. But even if he was looking in his mirror, it may have been to try to ascertain how far behind Hamilton was. And if we take drivers seriously when explaining that they don't see much of others in their mirrors anyway, then I would argue that we should think about the benefit of the doubt.
Not knowing what these drivers can see in their mirrors, or even how they decide what they need to see in them (rear tyre management, for example), I find it difficult to make my mind as to what he saw, and to what extent this might be taken to prove intent.

The more I think about this incident, the more I regret the stewards didn't decide to speak to the drivers after the race, before deciding where to lay blame. I can't see what the problem would be with a delayed podium ceremony.

Decisions need taking during the race not after the race.
If things are clear-cut why not? But as this thread shows, that is not the case here.

As I wrote in the closed race thread, we didn't hear from race control during the race. As the rules state, it is the race controller's prerogative to offer the offender to give the advantage gained back. But I didn't hear such an offer during the race, which is why I brought it up.

Two possibilities allowed a potentially interesting race to the end; the offer to give up the advantage gained, or the decision by the stewards to investigate the incident in depth after the race, including an interview with the driver. (This result could also have upset a part of the fan base, but that is unavoidable.)
What actually happened was an in-depth investigation during the race which took quite some time, before ending the race with a verdict that is not undisputed.

I don't think the rules state every incident investigation must be concluded before the end of the race.

It was clear cut for the stewards, so when do we have the podium celebrations, do we have things decided 2 hours after the race like Spa 2008?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Last edited by pokerman on Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
JamWalsh wrote:
If this happen on a different track with no wall, would it still have been a penalty?

According to the rules that would be yes.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
JamWalsh wrote:
For me that's why I disagree with the penalty. I understand Vettel came back on dangerous but if its a penalty in Canada then it should be a penalty everywhere. I know there is different degrees and danger but dangerous is dangerous no?

I disagree with the other answers Verstappen got penalised for doing the same thing with Kimi, there was no wall there.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
BMWSauber84 wrote:
One of the more unpleasant legacies of this penalty is people on social media genuinely or sometimes wilfully misreading the regulations to try and write a narrative of the FIA being in cahoots with Mercedes.

Renault apparantly enquired about the radio message "you don't have a problem" that Merc gave to Hamilton on the formation lap. They didn't appeal but that hasn't stopped the bedwetters claiming it is evidence of illegal radio messages.

Likewise reports are suggesting that Hamilton's hydraulics were not entirely identical to how they had been in oarc ferme (after the rebuild) but they couldn't prove that they worked any differently so no penalty. Of course the reality is that in these situations the hydraulics only have to be similar and not providong a performance advantage.

I heard the hydraulic system was the same.

As for the "you don't have a problem", wasn't that about Hamilton's car going into anti stall as he set off on the formation lap, what rule would that be breaking?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1241
Location: UK
pokerman wrote:
JamWalsh wrote:
For me that's why I disagree with the penalty. I understand Vettel came back on dangerous but if its a penalty in Canada then it should be a penalty everywhere. I know there is different degrees and danger but dangerous is dangerous no?

I disagree with the other answers Verstappen got penalised for doing the same thing with Kimi, there was no wall there.


Well yes but it that instance the lead changed, it didn't in Canada.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Option or Prime wrote:
pokerman wrote:
JamWalsh wrote:
For me that's why I disagree with the penalty. I understand Vettel came back on dangerous but if its a penalty in Canada then it should be a penalty everywhere. I know there is different degrees and danger but dangerous is dangerous no?

I disagree with the other answers Verstappen got penalised for doing the same thing with Kimi, there was no wall there.


Well yes but it that instance the lead changed, it didn't in Canada.

It wasn't for the lead and Verstappen kept his position.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1241
Location: UK
OK, I was talking Dec 2017 US GP so we are not talking the same are we, there are a lot of MV KR incidents as it happens!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Option or Prime wrote:
OK, I was talking Dec 2017 US GP so we are not talking the same are we, there are a lot of MV KR incidents as it happens!

Japan 2018, the incident that emulates what happened in Canada.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3506
I think, once the dust settles and those whose opinions are not being shaped by their allegiance (ie, whether they are supporting it because their team/driver benefited or complaining because their team/driver lost out) are left in the ring there will still be a difference of opinion over the matter and that is because it ultimately splits on where people stand on a fundamental issue of where the ethic and lines of on track fighting are drawn.

There are a few situations that occur when it comes to two drivers fighting on track, and an off track excursion occurs in which the driver who leaves the track benefits.

Situation 1 - The driver behind cuts the chicane and consequently passes the driver in front
In this situation, it is pretty much unanimously agreed that the driver should relinquish the position and attempt the pass again.

Situation 2 - The driver ahead cuts the chicane when under pressure and avoids being overtaken by cutting ahead of the driver who is attacking
This is similar - but not the same as what happened in Canada. It often happens at Monza, or at Monaco, and the driver who cuts the chicane pulls a gap from the shortcut.

In this situation, race control normally give the defending car one "joker" - sometimes two - but basically, if they exceed that and don't concede the position then the incident will be reported to the stewards and with a strong likelihood of a time penalty.

Situation 3 - The driver ahead cuts the chicane and impedes the driver behind
This is what happened in Canada and what happened in Suzuka with Max and Kimi.

It's different from situation 2 - which is what we normally see - the key difference being that while in both cases the driver defending stayed ahead, in this case they actively impeded the driver attacking.

Basically, in situation 2, the driver behind was not blocked from passing - the defending driver stayed in front because they took a shortcut by cutting the track.

In situation 3 they would have completed the pass had the defending driver not blocked them.

Of course, Situation 3 has two variants, the deliberate block and the accidental block - and it's on this nuance where the core difference of opinion will occur.

I would say that 99% of fans would agree that in situation 1 that the driver who passes by cutting the track should give the position back.

I would say that 80% of fans agree that in situation 2 that the defending driver should probably not concede the position on their first miss of the chicane (ie, when they haven't impeded the overtake)

It's situation 3 where it become a bit fuzzier. I think that a majority of fans would probably accept that if a driver cuts the chicane and then deliberately impedes a driver that they have just passed that they should probably be penalised if they don't give up the position.

However, in the case of the 'accidental' block... then this becomes a philosophical debate about which driver gets the entitlement.

Does the defending driver get entitled to keep their position if fate prevents the overtaking driver from getting past? Or should the overtaking driver be rewarded for pushing their driver into an error?

Vettel did make an error, he then took a short cut - which yes, was a slower line thanks to the grass, but it was breaking track limits but he then ended up blocking Hamilton. Whether or not it was deliberate will be relevant to some fans, and irrelevant to others.

We will essentially have three groups of people.

People who think that Vettel should concede the position whether or not the block was intentional.
People who think that Vettel shouldn't concede the position whether or the block was intentional.
And people who think that Vettel should concede the position if it the block was intentional, but shouldn't concede it if the block was accidental.

And it is ultimately along these lines that the battle is being drawn. Ultimately, there is no 'right' answer, this really does depend on what your philosophy is on motor racing as to which of these you feel is appropriate - but it's also why this issue will run and run and run, even if the partisan fans were to not take part in the discussion at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm
Posts: 513
pokerman wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
One of the more unpleasant legacies of this penalty is people on social media genuinely or sometimes wilfully misreading the regulations to try and write a narrative of the FIA being in cahoots with Mercedes.

Renault apparantly enquired about the radio message "you don't have a problem" that Merc gave to Hamilton on the formation lap. They didn't appeal but that hasn't stopped the bedwetters claiming it is evidence of illegal radio messages.

Likewise reports are suggesting that Hamilton's hydraulics were not entirely identical to how they had been in oarc ferme (after the rebuild) but they couldn't prove that they worked any differently so no penalty. Of course the reality is that in these situations the hydraulics only have to be similar and not providong a performance advantage.

I heard the hydraulic system was the same.

As for the "you don't have a problem", wasn't that about Hamilton's car going into anti stall as he set off on the formation lap, what rule would that be breaking?


Re the hydraulics I'm going from this tweet from an AmuS guy. https://mobile.twitter.com/tgruener/sta ... 3394113537.

With the radio, it breaks no rules and that's why renault didn't proceed with any report.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
What is most funny in this thread is the folks saying Vettel was on the power, if you have ever driven a kart or turned all the safety systems in a car off you will understand why he was on the power to counteract the oversteer and turning into it!

The onboard shows he went on the power and then got the oversteer moment.

I'm sure I read someone claiming he had experience of racing and Vettel would have some power on when on the grass to better control the car, Vettel said he kept off the power when on the grass, I'm not sure if such things are just made up?

I've raced karts and it's just not black and white. It depends on the situation. Karts are not F1 cars anyway so I don't know how much you can translate that. When you put your right foot down in an F1 car, there are a lot more horses responding than in a go-kart.

Power to weight ratio? Tyres? I'm not sure it is easy to compare really, a lot of differences for sure


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No it wasn't deliberate whilst Vettel was looking in his mirror at the time?
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

This whole mirror business - was he actually looking in the mirror? Is it possible that his head may have been inclined that way for another reason? Just asking...
Quite possibly. But even if he was looking in his mirror, it may have been to try to ascertain how far behind Hamilton was. And if we take drivers seriously when explaining that they don't see much of others in their mirrors anyway, then I would argue that we should think about the benefit of the doubt.
Not knowing what these drivers can see in their mirrors, or even how they decide what they need to see in them (rear tyre management, for example), I find it difficult to make my mind as to what he saw, and to what extent this might be taken to prove intent.

The more I think about this incident, the more I regret the stewards didn't decide to speak to the drivers after the race, before deciding where to lay blame. I can't see what the problem would be with a delayed podium ceremony.

Decisions need taking during the race not after the race.

This also runs the risk of rushing things. And for incidents at the last laps of a race it is almost impossible


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2891
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514


And according to reports Ferrari have informed FIA they will not appeal penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
shoot999 wrote:
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514


And according to reports Ferrari have informed FIA they will not appeal penalty.

That was a long read!!!! Thank you


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
What is most funny in this thread is the folks saying Vettel was on the power, if you have ever driven a kart or turned all the safety systems in a car off you will understand why he was on the power to counteract the oversteer and turning into it!

The onboard shows he went on the power and then got the oversteer moment.

I'm sure I read someone claiming he had experience of racing and Vettel would have some power on when on the grass to better control the car, Vettel said he kept off the power when on the grass, I'm not sure if such things are just made up?

I've raced karts and it's just not black and white. It depends on the situation. Karts are not F1 cars anyway so I don't know how much you can translate that. When you put your right foot down in an F1 car, there are a lot more horses responding than in a go-kart.

I raced karts as well, from my experience if you start to lose grip on a slippery surface then you stay off the loud pedal.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2803
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
What is most funny in this thread is the folks saying Vettel was on the power, if you have ever driven a kart or turned all the safety systems in a car off you will understand why he was on the power to counteract the oversteer and turning into it!

The onboard shows he went on the power and then got the oversteer moment.

I'm sure I read someone claiming he had experience of racing and Vettel would have some power on when on the grass to better control the car, Vettel said he kept off the power when on the grass, I'm not sure if such things are just made up?

I've raced karts and it's just not black and white. It depends on the situation. Karts are not F1 cars anyway so I don't know how much you can translate that. When you put your right foot down in an F1 car, there are a lot more horses responding than in a go-kart.

I raced karts as well, from my experience if you start to lose grip on a slippery surface then you stay off the loud pedal.

It's worth bearing in mind that, due to the downforce generated from an F1 car, releasing the throttle would be the equivalent of hitting the brakes on another vehicle. I'd guess that Vettel had to feather / balance the throttle across the grass, simply to keep the car pointing in more-or-less the right direction, before correcting things once back onto the circuit.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:24 am
Posts: 685
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
What is most funny in this thread is the folks saying Vettel was on the power, if you have ever driven a kart or turned all the safety systems in a car off you will understand why he was on the power to counteract the oversteer and turning into it!

The onboard shows he went on the power and then got the oversteer moment.

I'm sure I read someone claiming he had experience of racing and Vettel would have some power on when on the grass to better control the car, Vettel said he kept off the power when on the grass, I'm not sure if such things are just made up?

I've raced karts and it's just not black and white. It depends on the situation. Karts are not F1 cars anyway so I don't know how much you can translate that. When you put your right foot down in an F1 car, there are a lot more horses responding than in a go-kart.

I raced karts as well, from my experience if you start to lose grip on a slippery surface then you stay off the loud pedal.

It's worth bearing in mind that, due to the downforce generated from an F1 car, releasing the throttle would be the equivalent of hitting the brakes on another vehicle. I'd guess that Vettel had to feather / balance the throttle across the grass, simply to keep the car pointing in more-or-less the right direction, before correcting things once back onto the circuit.

Listening to the on board footage, its pretty clear there was no feathering when he found the black stuff after his cross country tour. The increase in volume shows he tried to get back on it straight away, promptly nearly loosing the back end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Does looking in the mirror by itself prove that the squeeze was deliberate? Or was there further proof?

This whole mirror business - was he actually looking in the mirror? Is it possible that his head may have been inclined that way for another reason? Just asking...
Quite possibly. But even if he was looking in his mirror, it may have been to try to ascertain how far behind Hamilton was. And if we take drivers seriously when explaining that they don't see much of others in their mirrors anyway, then I would argue that we should think about the benefit of the doubt.
Not knowing what these drivers can see in their mirrors, or even how they decide what they need to see in them (rear tyre management, for example), I find it difficult to make my mind as to what he saw, and to what extent this might be taken to prove intent.

The more I think about this incident, the more I regret the stewards didn't decide to speak to the drivers after the race, before deciding where to lay blame. I can't see what the problem would be with a delayed podium ceremony.

Decisions need taking during the race not after the race.

This also runs the risk of rushing things. And for incidents at the last laps of a race it is almost impossible

It took 9 laps for them to make the decision maybe 15 mins, I'm not sure you can call that rushed?

Obviously in the closing laps of a race they may not be enough time although the stewards acted swiftly enough to penalise Verstappen for an illegal pass on Kimi and we saw Verstappen politely being asked to leave the waiting room for the podium.

Decisions can be done in a reasonable time but having to interview drivers after a race is clearly pushing decisions back a hour or even more and what if there is more than one decision to be made, it starts to become farcical.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1094
shay550 wrote:
Hamilton would have passed outside track limits and then we would be having another discussion lol...



Exactly this.

If it was paved, Hamilton would have passed him by going off track, it would have been investigated and the most likely outcome would be no action taken due to Hamilton avoiding a car returning to the track not at racing speed.

If it was Grass, Hamilton might have gone for it a bit more and kept his foot in a little longer. This would have likely been the same outcome.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group