myWorld Großer Preis von Österreich 2019Formula 1
- Thread starter TenEightyOne
- 511 comments
- 16,769 views
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
I'm so sick of FIA favouring Ferrari Again! When will it end...
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 31,122
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
Last I heard was that he is now on lap 65.
- 3,035
- Kingston, Jamaica
- pj-gm
- PJwasHere876
Eh, we know that Max has been getting away with this type of thing for a while. He's still a terrific racer, but he will keep pushing the boundaries of clean and dirty if rulings like this continue.
I think it's more than just naughty. Rosberg got vilified for something like this at that very turn in 2016, and that one actually ended with scraps of carbon fiber. He was defending and not attacking, but he still more or less gave the outside guy (Lewis) no room.
I think Max gets a penalty today if not for the highly controversial Canada ruling. The stewards probably don't want to feed the narrative that the races aren't being decided on the track.
It was dirty, but didn't result in any terminal damage, looking relatively minor compared to 2016, and that helps Max's case as well. The incident just didn't look open and shut enough (even though it is by letter of the law) for them to make the ruling and not destroy the sport's image. This highlights the bigger issue with the stewards, which is consistency, but today we can at least enjoy one of the best races all year so far.
Also, Alonso walked so Norris and Verstappen could run.
EDIT: https://hashondawonyet.com/
I think it's more than just naughty. Rosberg got vilified for something like this at that very turn in 2016, and that one actually ended with scraps of carbon fiber. He was defending and not attacking, but he still more or less gave the outside guy (Lewis) no room.
I think Max gets a penalty today if not for the highly controversial Canada ruling. The stewards probably don't want to feed the narrative that the races aren't being decided on the track.
It was dirty, but didn't result in any terminal damage, looking relatively minor compared to 2016, and that helps Max's case as well. The incident just didn't look open and shut enough (even though it is by letter of the law) for them to make the ruling and not destroy the sport's image. This highlights the bigger issue with the stewards, which is consistency, but today we can at least enjoy one of the best races all year so far.
Also, Alonso walked so Norris and Verstappen could run.
EDIT: https://hashondawonyet.com/
- 16,433
- United Kingdom
Personally, I've always felt this type of move is really dirty, I felt that each and every time it happened and never even got a look in with the stewards, and that was a lot of times... Hamilton consistently doing it early on in his career is one of the reasons I've never liked him... I genuinely have no horse in this race but I'm stunned people are pretending this is new, or will set a precedent... it's been happening for as long as I can remember.
- 16,269
- Boise, ID
- GTP_EDK
They assume rulings will be consistent with respect to the racing rules and everyone may get away with it.
But that's not how it works. The actual outcome is political, not clerical.
- 629
- Ontario, Canada
- B-Line98
Yeah, they are, which is exactly why they should be treated different, and in my opinion knocking someone of track is more dangerous than a recovery from the grass that ended in no contact.
The FIA is so convoluted they cant see that. The concistency is not there at all. These 2 incidents should have been the reverse of what they were treated as.
- 12,626
- United Kingdom
Seeing as both the Canada and Austria incidents are being discussed...
I think the only way to explain why both decisions went they way they did is the perceived danger, not malice.
There was no malice in what Vettel did, but his actions put him and more importantly Hamilton in a lot of danger.
Seeing as the penalties system is in place to protect drivers from themselves and opponents, danger is something the FIA doesn't like to put its drivers in.
Verstappen acted on a lot of malice, but Leclerc was put in very little danger due to the slow speeds and space in the runoff area.
Not that I agree with this, personally both should have been a penalty, but there's no other way I can think of for both of these penalties going the way they did ignoring any politics. Just on stewarding the incidents on their own.
Hopefully that'll help answer some questions.
I think the only way to explain why both decisions went they way they did is the perceived danger, not malice.
There was no malice in what Vettel did, but his actions put him and more importantly Hamilton in a lot of danger.
Seeing as the penalties system is in place to protect drivers from themselves and opponents, danger is something the FIA doesn't like to put its drivers in.
Verstappen acted on a lot of malice, but Leclerc was put in very little danger due to the slow speeds and space in the runoff area.
Not that I agree with this, personally both should have been a penalty, but there's no other way I can think of for both of these penalties going the way they did ignoring any politics. Just on stewarding the incidents on their own.
Hopefully that'll help answer some questions.
Lion-Face
Premium
- 1,466
- Invercargill
- Lion-Face
The end of the race was brilliant! I was hoping Leclerc would win today but not to be.
I feel that, because of the Canadian penalty, then Max should have lost the place. I don't want that to happen, as there have been many incidents like this with cars banging wheels and the attacker going past and they have been great passes. I hate it when it happens to me on the track but I feel it is right as it is.
I feel that, because of the Canadian penalty, then Max should have lost the place. I don't want that to happen, as there have been many incidents like this with cars banging wheels and the attacker going past and they have been great passes. I hate it when it happens to me on the track but I feel it is right as it is.
- 939
- Zürich
Err, really. These two events are not even remotely comparable.
Number 1 - Vettel rejoined the track in a totally unsafe manner, and if it hadn't been for Hamiltons quick reactions he'd have been stuffed into a barrier.
Number 2 - Brief contact between Verstappen and Leclerc where Leclerc tried to close the door after it was too late.
The FIA got it right with with both of these.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That wasn't about contact (or lack of) it was about the fact that a driver was literally impeded by a returning car to the advantage of the returning car. No intent or control was required from the returning car. I agree that every case should be treated on the facts of the individual case.
You must be kidding!? Leclerc tried to take the corner as he's entitled to do, he was hardly closing any door.
Last edited:
- 6,838
- Europe
- GTP_Slim
- PzR Slim
Yep, Leclerc was just expecting to be given racing room as he should be entitled to as neither driver was ahead, which that picture clearly shows. In my opinion only when a driver is clearly ahead can they dictate their line through a corner. If Verstappen had managed to get half a car length ahead then I would have been fine him running Leclerc out of room.
- 27,385
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
What race were people watching where Leclerc "closed the door too late"?
He was taking a line that would've kept him just on the track. Otherwise known as an outside line. Max took one that also would be considered an outside line at best, but took it as if there wasn't another car to his left. The understeer as he's heading into the corner is pretty telling.
He was taking a line that would've kept him just on the track. Otherwise known as an outside line. Max took one that also would be considered an outside line at best, but took it as if there wasn't another car to his left. The understeer as he's heading into the corner is pretty telling.
- 27,385
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
Max very slightly opened up the steering before contact (watch the front wheels):
There's nothing in the rules that states "if you're an inch ahead, pretend the car beside you doesn't exist and take the line of your choice." Max took a lunge, forced another car off track, and is being rewarded for it.
- 3,039
- The Netherlands
- MarcoM1972
@SlipZtrEm
Charles pretended that Max was not there by driving into him. Granted, Max did an defending move during the overtake but it was Charles who ultimately steered into Max.
Charles is lucky he did not get a penalty. Did you see that Charles' name was first in the message on screen about the investigation. Normally the offender's name is the one they put first.
And besides all this downing on Max' win. He was clearly the faster driver compared to everyone. After the dramatic start he gave everyone master class in racing and overtaking.
Charles pretended that Max was not there by driving into him. Granted, Max did an defending move during the overtake but it was Charles who ultimately steered into Max.
Charles is lucky he did not get a penalty. Did you see that Charles' name was first in the message on screen about the investigation. Normally the offender's name is the one they put first.
And besides all this downing on Max' win. He was clearly the faster driver compared to everyone. After the dramatic start he gave everyone master class in racing and overtaking.
DesertPenguin
(Banned)
- 10,691
- Long Island, New York
- DesertPenguin_
- 10,828
- Belgium
- bramturismo
Veinz
Premium
- 4,857
- Ontario
Max may have out braked himself a bit, but Charles did not even bother protecting his position there either. You make it sound like it was blatant and malicious like Rosberg's move but it really didn't seem like it to me. It's just two drivers on the limit fighting over the same piece of track, someone will inevitably lose out. Penalize every little thing like this, then the drivers might as well just go home.
Latest Posts
-
-
-
Introduce Yourself! New Member Introductions Thread — Come Say Hello!- Latest: RampantMongoo
-
-