2019 Formula 1 Pirelli Grand Prix du CanadaFormula 1 

  • Thread starter Jimlaad43
  • 386 comments
  • 14,905 views
Riptide
No surprise there - he's X Mercedes
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I don't think that's what it is. In the few analysis that I've watched him do since he retired from the sport, he's always been impartial and from a racers pov. Though he does critic Vettel often for the same thing which is him making stupid mistakes when under pressure.

Either way, something he said something that I totally agree with, there was still 22 laps to go after that incident, rather than whining over the radio and pulling all the childish tantrums, why didn't Vettel just focus on trying to build that 5 sec gap to Hamilton? I mean at one point he had over 3 secs on Lewis when he had to back off a few times to let his car cool off, so much so that the team had to tell him to pick up the pace and stay on Vettel's gearbox and him asking for more power.
 
zzz_pt
I'm talking about situations where the cars rejoin and come close to contact out contact. Not cases where there's a run off. But even then, you can see plenty of times the driver in front missing the breaking zone and keep going because they don't get an advantage / overtake someone else.

Also, it's silly in your opinion. I doubt F1 fans like this type of BS, where racing gets second place behind over zealous / unfair FIA stewardship. Maybe fans who like soap operas like it. I don't and I think the majority of fans of F1 don't like that either.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't understand the first paragraph.

As for the second, I don't think it's silly. There was on-track action and Lewis (through constant pressure) forced Vettel into an error. The fallout of this also raises the stakes for the next Grand Prix as Vettel (and Ferrari) have something to prove. These decisions have long existed in the sport and have come to affect more than just race wins. The rules are there for everyone to follow and at the end of the day it's up to the stewards to understand and enforce them.

I think back to 2017 when Vettel imploded, swearing at Charlie and driving into the side of Lewis's car. It was fantastic drama and added to the story of the season. I don't see this as any different.



EDIT: Will Buxton's thoughts;

ofb84nnmpi331.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mark Hughes at motorsport magazine on the money as per usual


"Regardless of how badly F1 needs a different winner at the moment, just as a racing decision alone it was a nonsense. As Vettel lost the rear of the car on corner entry, so he was forced to open up the steering to avoid a spin, this taking him on a ride across the grass beyond the kerb. As the Ferrari came back on track with grass on its tyres, oversteering, sliding this way and that, so Vettel needed the width of the track to collect it and keep it out the wall. Hamilton was potentially about to be between Vettel and the wall and as the Ferrari had a secondary slide, so the Merc was squeezed out, forcing Hamilton to brake.

That was it. A simple racing incident, the sort of thing that’s always happened in the heat of battle. But there is a rule there, with wording intended for an entirely different situation (like how to rejoin after you’ve spun and not doing so into the path of oncoming cars). But because it’s there, there’s a stupid obligation to apply it. Did Vettel’s actions impede Hamilton? Yes of course they did. Were they intended to do that? Obviously, visibly, not. He slid over there in the process of getting the car under control. He didn’t drive it there trying to squeeze Hamilton out. That was a consequence."
 
So am I correct in assuming that the F1 rulebook makes no differentiation between rejoining the track after an incident - i.e. spinning off, regaining control, and then driving yourself back onto the road - and returning to the track in the middle of an incident - i.e. spinning off, fighting the car, having it bounce around and toss you back onto the racetrack, and then finally managing to recover control and getting back under way?

Because that seems to be what is at issue here, since Vettel was clearly still in the process of trying not to spin or smash into anything when he inadvertently drifted over into the path Lewis chose to take while containing the slide the car kicked into when it bounced over the curb. Not saying Lewis should have chosen differently, but he at least was in a position to make a choice since he had full control of his car. It seems that we're arguing whether Vettel's technique for attempting to contain the car and not run into two walls was executed appropriately or not which could be a rather difficult standard to maintain.

We also seem to keep comparing an out-of-control car in the grass to supposedly similar incidents involving cars completely under control on pavement after going too deep into corners so I'm not sure how useful those comparisons are.

All in all, Vettel made a mistake which probably should have cost him a position but through racing luck it didn't. The technical term for that used to be "one of them racin' deals." And then a penalty cost him the position anyway. You can say it's the result that it should have been in the end, it's just not a very pleasant way to achieve that result. If we just ban grass and walls from all racetracks I guess we could probably avoid a similar problem in the future.
 
Was struggling to think of a coherent opinion on this that wasn't just "Aargh F1 is terrible" or some such repeat of the obvious. Fortunately, someone else managed to sum it all up for me instead:

While the stewards’ decision was correct, it was not popular, particularly among those who’ve grown weary of Mercedes success. Vettel’s error handed the Silver Arrows their ninth consecutive win, seven of which Hamilton has taken. It was undoubtedly an anticlimactic end to a gripping battle between two of the sport’s stars. And while Hamilton’s precise understanding of the rules demonstrates the kind of professionalism which wins world championship, he is also capable of the kind of overtaking feats which win admirers, and that is surely what we would rather see more of than races decided by stewarding decisions.

But if the sport is to have integrity it must also strive to be consistent and fair, a point which was obviously lost on those who took to social media even before the stewards’ investigation was announced to demand they turn a blind eye just to keep the battle going. That said, there are clearly ways F1 can improve how it polices incidents such as these – adopting the ‘return routes’ used at turns nine and 14 to prevent drivers gaining an advantage from going off would be a start.
Click to expand...
 
Morgoth_666
So am I correct in assuming that the F1 rulebook makes no differentiation between rejoining the track after an incident - i.e. spinning off, regaining control, and then driving yourself back onto the road - and returning to the track in the middle of an incident - i.e. spinning off, fighting the car, having it bounce around and toss you back onto the racetrack, and then finally managing to recover control and getting back under way?

Because that seems to be what is at issue here, since Vettel was clearly still in the process of trying not to spin or smash into anything when he inadvertently drifted over into the path Lewis chose to take while containing the slide the car kicked into when it bounced over the curb. Not saying Lewis should have chosen differently, but he at least was in a position to make a choice since he had full control of his car. It seems that we're arguing whether Vettel's technique for attempting to contain the car and not run into two walls was executed appropriately or not which could be a rather difficult standard to maintain.

We also seem to keep comparing an out-of-control car in the grass to supposedly similar incidents involving cars completely under control on pavement after going too deep into corners so I'm not sure how useful those comparisons are.
Click to expand...
To quote Palmer from his column.

"By the letter of the law, Vettel was guilty.

He either crowded another driver off the circuit - Hamilton into the wall on the exit of Turn Four, to the point where the Mercedes driver had to anchor on the brakes to avoid a collision.

Or, as his defence said, his natural momentum took him across the full width of the circuit. But in that case he is guilty of rejoining the circuit in an unsafe manner, as he was not in full control of his car, to the extent that he ran Hamilton off the road in an unsafe manner.

One of these scenarios has to be correct."

From the replay T-Cams, if you watch from Vettel's angle, it looks like you could argue it isn't a penalty. If you watch from Hamilton's angle, it is 100% a penalty. Add that up and it's 60% penalty, 40% not a penalty, which means penalty.

Stop working out whether an out of control car can be allowed to retake its line, because if that's fine - which 90% of outraged commenters seem to be saying is - then the penalty is being given out for Vettel squeezing Hamilton into the wall. Hamitlon had enough of his wheels ahead of Vettel's rear wheels to claim rights to having space left for him - which there wasn't.
 
Poor Vettel is a pechvogel, an unlucky bird. He had a good race going until he threw it away, disappointing a lot more folks than just himself. Perhaps he needs to join Kit Harington in therapy? :rolleyes: Fate has decided for him play second fiddle to Lewis. We should just get used to it.

On the other hand, the performance of Renault engined cars is impressive on such a "power circuit". Another upgrade is in the works for France, I hear.
 
Jimlaad43
To quote Palmer from his column.

"By the letter of the law, Vettel was guilty.

He either crowded another driver off the circuit - Hamilton into the wall on the exit of Turn Four, to the point where the Mercedes driver had to anchor on the brakes to avoid a collision.

Or, as his defence said, his natural momentum took him across the full width of the circuit. But in that case he is guilty of rejoining the circuit in an unsafe manner, as he was not in full control of his car, to the extent that he ran Hamilton off the road in an unsafe manner.

One of these scenarios has to be correct."

From the replay T-Cams, if you watch from Vettel's angle, it looks like you could argue it isn't a penalty. If you watch from Hamilton's angle, it is 100% a penalty. Add that up and it's 60% penalty, 40% not a penalty, which means penalty.

Stop working out whether an out of control car can be allowed to retake its line, because if that's fine - which 90% of outraged commenters seem to be saying is - then the penalty is being given out for Vettel squeezing Hamilton into the wall. Hamitlon had enough of his wheels ahead of Vettel's rear wheels to claim rights to having space left for him - which there wasn't.
Click to expand...

You're (and Palmer, as many others) missing the concept of racing incident, which is what most people think it was - not "outraged commentars", unless you think former F1 championship winners are outraged commenters. Apparently Button knows the difference between grass and tarmac, while Palmer simply ignores is. Vettel was going at around 100 mph and that all happened in less than a second. I would love to see Palmer and all those applauding the decision, to control an F1 car at that speed, going over grass, over a curb and the dirty part of the track and still come out with the car completely under control. Should be fun.

Also, one of the biggest problems with this penalty is how over zelous the FIA seems to be while judging "grey" situations. Sometimes they are willing to ruin a race, while in others, they let it go (as I think they should). As Ricciardo himself said (he also thinks Vettel didn't deserve the penalty), back in Monaco 2016 the FIA didn't penalize Hamilton and that was a good decision. This should be the same, especially given the fact that Vettel went over grass and a curb.

If the FIA wants drivers to have control of their car when something happens in a breaking zone, they should take the grass out of every circuit. Oh, and walls too. Why not?
 
It is far better to ruin a race or even a season than for the stewards or officials to be seen not doing their jobs. GP racing is not a show or a sport per se, it is a business and always has been. The business is manufacturers showing off their wares to the public. The drivers are servants to a higher cause.
 
Dotini
It is far better to ruin a race or even a season than for the stewards or officials to be seen not doing their jobs. GP racing is not a show or a sport per se, it is a business and always has been. The business is manufacturers showing off their wares to the public. The drivers are servants to a higher cause.
Click to expand...

What if they do the former and are seen as not doing the latter?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If officials are ignoring their own rules to selectively stagemanage outcomes, then the sport comes into disrepute. It must be the rule of law, not of men.
 
MikeV27
Mark Hughes at motorsport magazine on the money as per usual


"Regardless of how badly F1 needs a different winner at the moment, just as a racing decision alone it was a nonsense. As Vettel lost the rear of the car on corner entry, so he was forced to open up the steering to avoid a spin, this taking him on a ride across the grass beyond the kerb. As the Ferrari came back on track with grass on its tyres, oversteering, sliding this way and that, so Vettel needed the width of the track to collect it and keep it out the wall. Hamilton was potentially about to be between Vettel and the wall and as the Ferrari had a secondary slide, so the Merc was squeezed out, forcing Hamilton to brake.

That was it. A simple racing incident, the sort of thing that’s always happened in the heat of battle. But there is a rule there, with wording intended for an entirely different situation (like how to rejoin after you’ve spun and not doing so into the path of oncoming cars). But because it’s there, there’s a stupid obligation to apply it. Did Vettel’s actions impede Hamilton? Yes of course they did. Were they intended to do that? Obviously, visibly, not. He slid over there in the process of getting the car under control. He didn’t drive it there trying to squeeze Hamilton out. That was a consequence."
Click to expand...

He cut hamilton off on purpose either by applying the throttle too much or deliberately steering towards him to maintain the position (probably both). Seb has a history of this. The stewards are astute and were correct so get over it. Its only a race... causing an opponent to jam on the brakes and forcing them towards the wall is beyond the pale. Take those prancing horse blinkers off... Sebs whining and histrionics were to distract from the fact that once again he choked no other driver made a mistake at that corner during the race nuff said
 
Dotini
If officials are ignoring their own rules to selectively stagemanage outcomes, then the sport comes into disrepute. It must be the rule of law, not of men.
Click to expand...

Is that serious? :D

Jimlaad43
Which this wasn't
Click to expand...

In your opinion. But according to plenty of other people, including current F1 drivers, former F1 drivers / champions and pro racers from other sports, that's exactly what it was.
 
evldave333
He cut hamilton off on purpose either by applying the throttle too much or deliberately steering towards him to maintain the position (probably both). Seb has a history of this. The stewards are astute and were correct so get over it. Its only a race... causing an opponent to jam on the brakes and forcing them towards the wall is beyond the pale. Take those prancing horse blinkers off... Sebs whining and histrionics were to distract from the fact that once again he choked no other driver made a mistake at that corner during the race nuff said
Click to expand...
No he didn't, what else was Sebastian supposed to do? Go into the wall and ruin his own race? He made an honest mistake and Hamilton was in the wrong place. Sebastian had no intent on impeding Hamilton, he wasn't in full control of his car. That's the kicker here - if he was in control of the car and cut someone off when rejoining, that would be a fair penalty.
 
evldave333
He cut hamilton off on purpose either by applying the throttle too much or deliberately steering towards him to maintain the position (probably both). Seb has a history of this. The stewards are astute and were correct so get over it. Its only a race... causing an opponent to jam on the brakes and forcing them towards the wall is beyond the pale. Take those prancing horse blinkers off... Sebs whining and histrionics were to distract from the fact that once again he choked no other driver made a mistake at that corner during the race nuff said
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
MikeV27
Mark Hughes at motorsport magazine on the money as per usual


"Regardless of how badly F1 needs a different winner at the moment, just as a racing decision alone it was a nonsense. As Vettel lost the rear of the car on corner entry, so he was forced to open up the steering to avoid a spin, this taking him on a ride across the grass beyond the kerb. As the Ferrari came back on track with grass on its tyres, oversteering, sliding this way and that, so Vettel needed the width of the track to collect it and keep it out the wall. Hamilton was potentially about to be between Vettel and the wall and as the Ferrari had a secondary slide, so the Merc was squeezed out, forcing Hamilton to brake.

That was it. A simple racing incident, the sort of thing that’s always happened in the heat of battle. But there is a rule there, with wording intended for an entirely different situation (like how to rejoin after you’ve spun and not doing so into the path of oncoming cars). But because it’s there, there’s a stupid obligation to apply it. Did Vettel’s actions impede Hamilton? Yes of course they did. Were they intended to do that? Obviously, visibly, not. He slid over there in the process of getting the car under control. He didn’t drive it there trying to squeeze Hamilton out. That was a consequence."
Click to expand...

Why does F1 need a different winner. I never heard that when Vettel was winning or when Schumacher was on his winning streak. I'm perfectly happy seeing Hamilton win. I hope he beats all of Schumacher's records. Hamilton is a great driver, he does his racing on the track. He's charitable, and a celebrity. He's good to his disabled brother. He never forgets to thank the fans, praise the event, and give the credit to his team. But it seems he'll never be good enough for some people. Well he's good enough for me and I hope he keeps winning forever. Who would you like as a champion weird choke master Vettel, or boring Kimi and Bottas. You think Vestappen fans are unbearable now, you think his an arrogant now, wait till he starts winning.

I was watching that race and it was really exciting. Hamilton was closing in on the hard tyres but I also know he wouldn't be able to fight in dirty air for long. He needed Vettel to make one of his classic mistakes. And right on cue he did. Then I thought he got away with it...but then he didn't. Super exciting unexpected conclusion. Hamilton win!

Then Vettel goes into histrionics to try to detract from the fact that he cracked under pressure again. And his fans act like babies. Boo Hamilton on the podium. Act like they know what their talking about when they don't have the telemetry data the stewards do.
 
Oswald07
Why does F1 need a different winner. I never heard that when Vettel was winning or when Schumacher was on his winning streak. I'm perfectly happy seeing Hamilton win. I hope he beats all of Schumacher's records. Hamilton is a great driver, he does his racing on the track. He's charitable, and a celebrity. He's good to his disabled brother. He never forgets to thank the fans, praise the event, and give the credit to his team. But it seems he'll never be good enough for some people. Well he's good enough for me and I hope he keeps winning forever. Who would you like as a champion weird choke master Vettel, or boring Kimi and Bottas. You think Vestappen fans are unbearable now, you think his an arrogant now, wait till he starts winning.

I was watching that race and it was really exciting. Hamilton was closing in on the hard tyres but I also know he wouldn't be able to fight in dirty air for long. He needed Vettel to make one of his classic mistakes. And right on cue he did. Then I thought he got away with it...but then he didn't. Super exciting unexpected conclusion. Hamilton win!

Then Vettel goes into histrionics to try to detract from the fact that he cracked under pressure again. And his fans act like babies. Boo Hamilton on the podium. Act like they know what their talking about when they don't have the telemetry data the stewards do.
Click to expand...
Short Memory?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sk...e-booing-of-sebastian-vettel-is-simply-not-on
 
baldgye
At every other chicane (that has concrete run-off) at Canada, the drivers are forced to go the long way round and given that Lewis was within half a second of him, Vettel would have lost the position had this happened at one of those chicanes.
Click to expand...
You know this for a fact? What if he kept control and maintained the lead? Would you call for a penalty then?
 
It's easy to look at things differently if they are not played in real time, that is the problem here, looking at things in slow motion when everything is done in real time, Vettel and Hamilton reacted in Real time so that's how it should be judged.

How can someone say they got got control of the car when you can't even see the throttle, it looked to me he power oversteered when the grass stopped and the track started then corrected with the wheel which sent him wide, these cars have 1000hp even with elite driving skill the car isn't gripped to all hell when you push the throttle to get it going again.
 
mustafur
How can someone say they got got control of the car when you can't even see the throttle, it looked to me he power oversteered when the grass stopped and the track started then corrected with the wheel which sent him wide, these cars have 1000hp even with elite driving skill the car isn't gripped to all hell when you push the throttle to get it going again.
Click to expand...

I think most people accept he wasn't in control, that has nothing to do with the penalty being the right one. After he'd made a mistake and gone off track his car ended up back on the track blocking a car that should have been able to go past. That's what the penalty's for.
 

Latest Posts

Back