planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:24 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2279
mcdo wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
mcdo wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Blake wrote:
What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.


My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade


What are you talking about?? Button had a drive through penalty that day

For speeding behind the safety car, not for putting Alonso in the wall


Lol he still got a penalty which is what you're arguing spoils racing!!! That is also for a different rule of racing, in different conditions.

You're really clutching at straws with that one


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Huw wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Personally, my opinion is that both Vettel and Hamilton are dicks...


I suppose there are those who will consider the above point to be not 100% germane to the argument but I’m curious, Blinky McSquinty... what is it about these two that makes them ‘dicks’ as you put it?

They both seem to be intelligent and personable young men as far as I can see.

I’m curious to read your reasons for this assessment.

The only revelation for me there was that he also feels the same about Vettel.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Laz_T800 wrote:
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=1024&graf=3&dr1=Lewis%20Hamilton&dr2=Sebastian%20Vettel

Just looking at the race lap comparison, 3 things stand out.
1, Vettel lost less than 2 seconds of lap time in the incident. The only way he loses so little IMHO is by nailing the throttle all through the run off, thus causing his out of control problem.
2, His issue caused Hamilton to lose even more time than Vettel. As rules go it's pretty damning evidence that he has hampered another driver sufficiently enough to be penalised.
3, It looks to me that he knew the penalty was coming long before it was announced. At lap 52 he suddenly starts to put in very quick laps to try and grow the gap.

It's probably round about that time that it was announced that the incident was going to be investigated?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

So your basically saying that Vettel's main concern was keeping his position rather than returning to the track safely, the defence being made for him was that he was still out of control when he returned to the track yet he immediately got on the throttle.

No I did not say that. All I said is that there is no rule preventing him from getting on the throttle when he got on the track. In essence, I think that he is allowed to go back on track and immediately on the throttle to defend his position; it does not mean he has the right to crowd someone, it is not what I am saying.

Well that explains your position better.

Initial defences of Vettel were that he lost control of his car whilst being off the throttle.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Siao7 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:
Had Lewis been a second further back, there would have been no penalty, it would have gone down as just another clumsy piece of driving.

Seb just needs to drive a bit faster in the rest of the lap if he's going to outbrake himself. An out of control rejoin causing another driver to brake will (should?) always result in some form of pain for the offender.

As I said at the time - he should have momentarily backed off once out of the corner, let Lewis past then stuck on his gearbox and raced to the end. Win-win for fairness and fans alike.

Ferrari should have approached race control immediately and asked if this would avoid an investigation. They would no doubt have been told yes.

I think yes they should have talked to the control as they used to do in the past, but I guess offering something to get out of trouble sounds almost like the definition of a bribe (for lack of better word)...

I read that's what they use to do when there would have been a drive through penalty which basically totally ruins your race, with the 5 second penalty why give any thought that you might have been in the wrong and hope that you don't get penalised, if you do you only lose the place you would have done by swapping positions anyway.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1855
Removed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
angrypirate wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.
We could add to that, the rule that it is not allowed to drive unnecessarily slowly, which you could take to mean that he was bound to get back up to racing speed as quickly as possible, so as not to constitute a hazard for other drivers.

Playing the devil's advocate a bit, one might point out that the rules don't say a driver has to re-join safely. They literally say that a driver can re-join when it is safe to do so. The operative word being "when". And it is worth pointing out that Vettel had no choice in picking the moment he re-joined.

It all boils down to whether Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the track deliberately or not, which apparently the stewards have determined he did. Which is why I hope the Ferrari appeal will cause the evidence of that to be made available to us all. Respect for the stewards is a matter of honour, but respect for the evidence is no less important.

How can you view that a driver is going unnecessarily slowly when he's just gone off the track in particular when it would be more advisable to return to the track in a safe and controlled manner, this feels more like made up reasoning?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
mikeyg123 wrote:
The reason given - Squeezing off the circuit - is the most baffling part to me. We see drivers pushed off the circuit almost every race without penalty. It's pretty much the done things to run the driver on the outside out of road on corner exit.

That's the part that includes rejoining the track safely and not forcing a car off the track.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
angrypirate wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.
We could add to that, the rule that it is not allowed to drive unnecessarily slowly, which you could take to mean that he was bound to get back up to racing speed as quickly as possible, so as not to constitute a hazard for other drivers.

Playing the devil's advocate a bit, one might point out that the rules don't say a driver has to re-join safely. They literally say that a driver can re-join when it is safe to do so. The operative word being "when". And it is worth pointing out that Vettel had no choice in picking the moment he re-joined.

It all boils down to whether Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the track deliberately or not, which apparently the stewards have determined he did. Which is why I hope the Ferrari appeal will cause the evidence of that to be made available to us all. Respect for the stewards is a matter of honour, but respect for the evidence is no less important.

Up until now I was arguing that intent should not be a factor: just because you do not mean to do something does not exclude that something from having happened. However, one or two posters have quoted the regulations which apparently stipulate that a driver should not deliberately crowd another driver off the circuit. If that is the case than, as mentioned above, it does come down to intent.
In terms of rejoining the circuit safely, Vettel had a split second to control the car as best he could across the grass. The fact that he kept the car pointing in the right direction, and that there was space on the circuit at the point of him rejoining, is good enough for me.
Edit: as above, it's about rejoining the circuit when it is safe to. Vettel had no choice in that matter so it's a non-factor for me.
Jeez - I've gone from moaning about the penalty to supporting it to being on the fence over it! Perhaps I'm just too fickle...

The stewards said that after controlling his car Vettel then opened his steering twice to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier which of course caused Hamilton to brake rather than crash.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1855
Seems Mercedes fell foul to parc ferme rules as the hydraulics change wasn't like for like but FIA cleared them as they could not prove it enhanced performance, accord to AMUS.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/1138341923394113537[/tweet]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7324
Rockie wrote:
Seems Mercedes fell foul to parc ferme rules as the hydraulics change wasn't like for like but FIA cleared them as they could not prove it enhanced performance, accord to AMUS.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/1138341923394113537[/tweet]


This is interesting. So Parc Ferme rules only apply if you get an advantage??? What a load of cr*p if that is the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7324
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

So your basically saying that Vettel's main concern was keeping his position rather than returning to the track safely, the defence being made for him was that he was still out of control when he returned to the track yet he immediately got on the throttle.

No I did not say that. All I said is that there is no rule preventing him from getting on the throttle when he got on the track. In essence, I think that he is allowed to go back on track and immediately on the throttle to defend his position; it does not mean he has the right to crowd someone, it is not what I am saying.

Well that explains your position better.

Initial defences of Vettel were that he lost control of his car whilst being off the throttle.

While off the track?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

So your basically saying that Vettel's main concern was keeping his position rather than returning to the track safely, the defence being made for him was that he was still out of control when he returned to the track yet he immediately got on the throttle.

No I did not say that. All I said is that there is no rule preventing him from getting on the throttle when he got on the track. In essence, I think that he is allowed to go back on track and immediately on the throttle to defend his position; it does not mean he has the right to crowd someone, it is not what I am saying.

Well that explains your position better.

Initial defences of Vettel were that he lost control of his car whilst being off the throttle.

While off the track?

...and when he lost the back end when he rejoined the track, all part of Vettel was merely a passenger.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7324
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
So your basically saying that Vettel's main concern was keeping his position rather than returning to the track safely, the defence being made for him was that he was still out of control when he returned to the track yet he immediately got on the throttle.

No I did not say that. All I said is that there is no rule preventing him from getting on the throttle when he got on the track. In essence, I think that he is allowed to go back on track and immediately on the throttle to defend his position; it does not mean he has the right to crowd someone, it is not what I am saying.

Well that explains your position better.

Initial defences of Vettel were that he lost control of his car whilst being off the throttle.

While off the track?

...and when he lost the back end when he rejoined the track, all part of Vettel was merely a passenger.

I am not sure about Vettel's comments, did he specify when he was out of control?

Either way, it doesn't matter, the stewards gave their explanation which is one I agree with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2717
pokerman wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
angrypirate wrote:
Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.
We could add to that, the rule that it is not allowed to drive unnecessarily slowly, which you could take to mean that he was bound to get back up to racing speed as quickly as possible, so as not to constitute a hazard for other drivers.

Playing the devil's advocate a bit, one might point out that the rules don't say a driver has to re-join safely. They literally say that a driver can re-join when it is safe to do so. The operative word being "when". And it is worth pointing out that Vettel had no choice in picking the moment he re-joined.

It all boils down to whether Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the track deliberately or not, which apparently the stewards have determined he did. Which is why I hope the Ferrari appeal will cause the evidence of that to be made available to us all. Respect for the stewards is a matter of honour, but respect for the evidence is no less important.

Up until now I was arguing that intent should not be a factor: just because you do not mean to do something does not exclude that something from having happened. However, one or two posters have quoted the regulations which apparently stipulate that a driver should not deliberately crowd another driver off the circuit. If that is the case than, as mentioned above, it does come down to intent.
In terms of rejoining the circuit safely, Vettel had a split second to control the car as best he could across the grass. The fact that he kept the car pointing in the right direction, and that there was space on the circuit at the point of him rejoining, is good enough for me.
Edit: as above, it's about rejoining the circuit when it is safe to. Vettel had no choice in that matter so it's a non-factor for me.
Jeez - I've gone from moaning about the penalty to supporting it to being on the fence over it! Perhaps I'm just too fickle...

The stewards said that after controlling his car Vettel then opened his steering twice to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier which of course caused Hamilton to brake rather than crash.

If it's after regaining control of his car when back on circuit, I guess that's where the intent has been taken from. Many may say (and I think that even Hamilton alluded to the same) that it may well have been instinctive in trying to protect his position but if it's interpreted as intent, that's the reasoning behind the penalty.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10064
Location: Ireland
FormulaFun wrote:
mcdo wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
mcdo wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade


What are you talking about?? Button had a drive through penalty that day

For speeding behind the safety car, not for putting Alonso in the wall


Lol he still got a penalty which is what you're arguing spoils racing!!! That is also for a different rule of racing, in different conditions.

You're really clutching at straws with that one

Please point to where I said that. Quotes will do nicely

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1360
IMO Vettel did direct his car to the right when he rejoined. He threw a block on Hamilton. He could have kept hard left, but that would have really slowed him down and allowed Hamilton an easy pass.

I am not condoning Vettel's action during or after the race, he acted like a jerk. But we need to understand what was going on inside his noggin. Ferrari has been trounced so far this year, both with sub-par performance, mechanical failures, or mistakes. But at the previous race in Monaco, Vettel finally secured a second place, breaking the Mercedes 1-2 run. Finally, a ray of sunshine for the team. Then he wins pole at Montreal, and is leading the race. This may be the big breakthrough the team really really needed.

The driver earns an insane amount of money, and along with that princely sum comes a boatload of pressure. Make no mistake, the powers at Ferrari were leaning on their drivers and the team for better results. So when Vettel was informed that he received a five second penalty, his brain exploded and the red mist came down hard.

And that is his Achille's heel, Vettel can revert to a three year old when things go horribly wrong instead of acting like a mature adult accepting the misfortune, and moving on. He refused to lose, I can respect that. But he acted a jerk, I do not condone or respect that part.

Any astute observer would have noticed that Ricciardo threw a few questionable blocks against Verstappen going down the long straight. IMO that had the potential for a very bad crash and was a much worse offense. But Ricciardo also saw his best result of this year, and also finishing ahead of his teammate. His scenario was very similar to Vettel. A ray of sunshine that was defended excessively.

But when you assign the label "defending excessively" to any driver, almost every one is guilty of this action at one time or another.

But so freaking what? Did he murder and eat a baby? All he did was do a few very stupid acts of defiance drama. I know many racers, and in the industry you learn to put the last race behind you the second the checkered flag flies and start concentrating on the next race. The main group of people who keep this story alive are the fans and TV commentators who are paid to stoke the flames of controversy and drama.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1855
It's quite surprising the same driver steward who refused to penalise Hamilton in Monaco '16 was the same one who decide to rule in favour of Hamilton at Montreal '19.

https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula- ... rmation-16


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:05 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1047
Location: UK
Why?

Incidentally its not one steward so which one? Garry Connelly, Jose Abed, Emanuele Pirro, Christian Calmes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6317
mikeyg123 wrote:
The reason given - Squeezing off the circuit - is the most baffling part to me. We see drivers pushed off the circuit almost every race without penalty. It's pretty much the done things to run the driver on the outside out of road on corner exit.

But the offending driver is not rejoining the circuit after running off. When doing that you are not allowed to impede another driver in any way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
No I did not say that. All I said is that there is no rule preventing him from getting on the throttle when he got on the track. In essence, I think that he is allowed to go back on track and immediately on the throttle to defend his position; it does not mean he has the right to crowd someone, it is not what I am saying.

Well that explains your position better.

Initial defences of Vettel were that he lost control of his car whilst being off the throttle.

While off the track?

...and when he lost the back end when he rejoined the track, all part of Vettel was merely a passenger.

I am not sure about Vettel's comments, did he specify when he was out of control?

Either way, it doesn't matter, the stewards gave their explanation which is one I agree with.

No that was a defence being given for Vettel, fair enough. :thumbup:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6317
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
IMO Vettel did direct his car to the right when he rejoined. He threw a block on Hamilton. He could have kept hard left, but that would have really slowed him down and allowed Hamilton an easy pass.

I am not condoning Vettel's action during or after the race, he acted like a jerk. But we need to understand what was going on inside his noggin. Ferrari has been trounced so far this year, both with sub-par performance, mechanical failures, or mistakes. But at the previous race in Monaco, Vettel finally secured a second place, breaking the Mercedes 1-2 run. Finally, a ray of sunshine for the team. Then he wins pole at Montreal, and is leading the race. This may be the big breakthrough the team really really needed.

The driver earns an insane amount of money, and along with that princely sum comes a boatload of pressure. Make no mistake, the powers at Ferrari were leaning on their drivers and the team for better results. So when Vettel was informed that he received a five second penalty, his brain exploded and the red mist came down hard.

And that is his Achille's heel, Vettel can revert to a three year old when things go horribly wrong instead of acting like a mature adult accepting the misfortune, and moving on. He refused to lose, I can respect that. But he acted a jerk, I do not condone or respect that part.

Any astute observer would have noticed that Ricciardo threw a few questionable blocks against Verstappen going down the long straight. IMO that had the potential for a very bad crash and was a much worse offense. But Ricciardo also saw his best result of this year, and also finishing ahead of his teammate. His scenario was very similar to Vettel. A ray of sunshine that was defended excessively.

But when you assign the label "defending excessively" to any driver, almost every one is guilty of this action at one time or another.

But so freaking what? Did he murder and eat a baby? All he did was do a few very stupid acts of defiance drama. I know many racers, and in the industry you learn to put the last race behind you the second the checkered flag flies and start concentrating on the next race. The main group of people who keep this story alive are the fans and TV commentators who are paid to stoke the flames of controversy and drama.

Agreed. Putting things behind you is a valuable lesson to learn in life. In my opinion this is the most excessive overreaction to a penalty that I can remember when you consider the penalty itself and what it was handed out for. Hopefully the media won't drag this out further and hopefully this forum will drop it too before long.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7613
Location: Belgium
Rockie wrote:
It's quite surprising the same driver steward who refused to penalise Hamilton in Monaco '16 was the same one who decide to rule in favour of Hamilton at Montreal '19.

https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula- ... rmation-16
I don't know whether he refused to penalise Hamilton at the time, but the stewards' report is factually correct. He was accused of not leaving enough room, while in fact he did. What is really surprising is that cutting the chicane wasn't (part of) the reported offence. There was also no mention of a possible advantage gained as a consequence of that.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.
We could add to that, the rule that it is not allowed to drive unnecessarily slowly, which you could take to mean that he was bound to get back up to racing speed as quickly as possible, so as not to constitute a hazard for other drivers.

Playing the devil's advocate a bit, one might point out that the rules don't say a driver has to re-join safely. They literally say that a driver can re-join when it is safe to do so. The operative word being "when". And it is worth pointing out that Vettel had no choice in picking the moment he re-joined.

It all boils down to whether Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the track deliberately or not, which apparently the stewards have determined he did. Which is why I hope the Ferrari appeal will cause the evidence of that to be made available to us all. Respect for the stewards is a matter of honour, but respect for the evidence is no less important.

Up until now I was arguing that intent should not be a factor: just because you do not mean to do something does not exclude that something from having happened. However, one or two posters have quoted the regulations which apparently stipulate that a driver should not deliberately crowd another driver off the circuit. If that is the case than, as mentioned above, it does come down to intent.
In terms of rejoining the circuit safely, Vettel had a split second to control the car as best he could across the grass. The fact that he kept the car pointing in the right direction, and that there was space on the circuit at the point of him rejoining, is good enough for me.
Edit: as above, it's about rejoining the circuit when it is safe to. Vettel had no choice in that matter so it's a non-factor for me.
Jeez - I've gone from moaning about the penalty to supporting it to being on the fence over it! Perhaps I'm just too fickle...

The stewards said that after controlling his car Vettel then opened his steering twice to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier which of course caused Hamilton to brake rather than crash.

If it's after regaining control of his car when back on circuit, I guess that's where the intent has been taken from. Many may say (and I think that even Hamilton alluded to the same) that it may well have been instinctive in trying to protect his position but if it's interpreted as intent, that's the reasoning behind the penalty.

Without doubt after making a mistake the priority is probably to maintain your position, some images are quite telling, Vettel looking in his mirror as he squeezes Hamilton towards the barrier, seemingly this was also noted by the stewards.

Image

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Fiki wrote:
Rockie wrote:
It's quite surprising the same driver steward who refused to penalise Hamilton in Monaco '16 was the same one who decide to rule in favour of Hamilton at Montreal '19.

https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula- ... rmation-16
I don't know whether he refused to penalise Hamilton at the time, but the stewards' report is factually correct. He was accused of not leaving enough room, while in fact he did. What is really surprising is that cutting the chicane wasn't (part of) the reported offence. There was also no mention of a possible advantage gained as a consequence of that.

Massa cut the chicane completely in the same race but no penalty was given, nominally you tend to get a warning for the first infringement.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6317
pokerman wrote:
Without doubt after making a mistake the priority is probably to maintain your position, some images are quite telling, Vettel looking in his mirror as he squeezes Hamilton towards the barrier, seemingly this was also noted by the stewards.

Image

This image shows one of the important differences between Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019. Vettel literally left no room at all on the track. Hamilton left barely a car's width (debatable by inches as to whether a car could have fit) on the track. In Monaco the track is right up against the barrier. In Canada, the wall is several feet off the track. But Vettel's right tires are over the white line so it's not even debatable that he left enough room. He didn't leave any room.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2731
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48593772

Seems those in the sport now complaining, are the ones who wanted it in the first place.

'Each and everyone in the system who thinks this penalty is not justified is at fault....'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
shoot999 wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48593772

Seems those in the sport now complaining, are the ones who wanted it in the first place.

'Each and everyone in the system who thinks this penalty is not justified is at fault....'

So one of the chief opponents of the penalty said that the stewards had to give the penalty because thems the rules.

Everybody complains about inconsistent stewarding so they now have a set of black and white rules which have to be strictly adhered to, and now they want to see some wiggly room which is bound to lead back to some inconsistent stewarding, only in F1 do we have this, always someone is not happy.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6317
One thing I am not clear on is whether or not the stewards have the capacity to instruct Vettel to give up the position. That would have been the appropriate penalty in most people's eyes but it's unclear as to whether or not that penalty was available to them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2279
mcdo wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
mcdo wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
mcdo wrote:
If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade


What are you talking about?? Button had a drive through penalty that day

For speeding behind the safety car, not for putting Alonso in the wall


Lol he still got a penalty which is what you're arguing spoils racing!!! That is also for a different rule of racing, in different conditions.

You're really clutching at straws with that one

Please point to where I said that. Quotes will do nicely


Excuse me if I have misinterpreted you but is the reason you highlighted that section of my comment and invoked that button won in 2011 in a great race in spite of various mistakes not to point out that a penalty would have robbed us of that?

If that was not your point then you'll have to explain to me what your point was


Last edited by FormulaFun on Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 1137
sandman1347 wrote:
One thing I am not clear on is whether or not the stewards have the capacity to instruct Vettel to give up the position. That would have been the appropriate penalty in most people's eyes but it's unclear as to whether or not that penalty was available to them.



Regulation 38.1 is what is cited on the report and under such the minimum penalty is the 5 sec penalty

stewards official report
https://www.fia.com/file/82120/download

Regulations
https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276

_________________
PF1 pick 10 2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums), 2017: 17th (3 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3 2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th
Autosport Gp 2016/17 - 5th
F1 Oracle 2017: 2nd (6 wins), 2016:5th (2wins)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7613
Location: Belgium
sandman1347 wrote:
One thing I am not clear on is whether or not the stewards have the capacity to instruct Vettel to give up the position. That would have been the appropriate penalty in most people's eyes but it's unclear as to whether or not that penalty was available to them.
No, not the stewards. And it is open to discussion whether 'giving up the position' is indeed what is meant by 'giving back the advantage'.
Sporting Regulations wrote:
At the absolute discretion of the race director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage gained by leaving the track.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6317
@Mayhem and Fiki thanks.

So, for me, that would be the thing to address in the rule book. I think it absolutely should be a penalty to return to the track unsafely in order to protect your position but in-race time penalties after the final stops just ruin the show. When possible, giving up the position would be the better way to remove the unfair advantage gained without actually ruining the race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9595
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
IMO Vettel did direct his car to the right when he rejoined. He threw a block on Hamilton. He could have kept hard left, but that would have really slowed him down and allowed Hamilton an easy pass.

I am not condoning Vettel's action during or after the race, he acted like a jerk. But we need to understand what was going on inside his noggin. Ferrari has been trounced so far this year, both with sub-par performance, mechanical failures, or mistakes. But at the previous race in Monaco, Vettel finally secured a second place, breaking the Mercedes 1-2 run. Finally, a ray of sunshine for the team. Then he wins pole at Montreal, and is leading the race. This may be the big breakthrough the team really really needed.

The driver earns an insane amount of money, and along with that princely sum comes a boatload of pressure. Make no mistake, the powers at Ferrari were leaning on their drivers and the team for better results. So when Vettel was informed that he received a five second penalty, his brain exploded and the red mist came down hard.

And that is his Achille's heel, Vettel can revert to a three year old when things go horribly wrong instead of acting like a mature adult accepting the misfortune, and moving on. He refused to lose, I can respect that. But he acted a jerk, I do not condone or respect that part.

Any astute observer would have noticed that Ricciardo threw a few questionable blocks against Verstappen going down the long straight. IMO that had the potential for a very bad crash and was a much worse offense. But Ricciardo also saw his best result of this year, and also finishing ahead of his teammate. His scenario was very similar to Vettel. A ray of sunshine that was defended excessively.

But when you assign the label "defending excessively" to any driver, almost every one is guilty of this action at one time or another.

But so freaking what? Did he murder and eat a baby? All he did was do a few very stupid acts of defiance drama. I know many racers, and in the industry you learn to put the last race behind you the second the checkered flag flies and start concentrating on the next race. The main group of people who keep this story alive are the fans and TV commentators who are paid to stoke the flames of controversy and drama.

Agreed. Putting things behind you is a valuable lesson to learn in life. In my opinion this is the most excessive overreaction to a penalty that I can remember when you consider the penalty itself and what it was handed out for. Hopefully the media won't drag this out further and hopefully this forum will drop it too before long.

The bold part is quite funny considering you´re one of (if not the) most vocal on the subject.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 636
sandman1347 wrote:
One thing I am not clear on is whether or not the stewards have the capacity to instruct Vettel to give up the position. That would have been the appropriate penalty in most people's eyes but it's unclear as to whether or not that penalty was available to them.

Would that be more appropriate though? If nothing else it means the ultimate winner sees the checkered flag first, but does Vettel have a better chance of re-overtaking Hamilton or building a 5s lead? In my eyes that would've been a harder position for Vettel to win from, and he almost certainly wouldn’t have given it up anyway. And both drivers still put on a good show in the closing stages despite the penalty.

I think the current regs and cars also influence the rules a little with these decisions. Drivers have to be so careful managing tyres and temperatures and lose so much following that it means that they only have a small window to make the overtake in most races when the cars are evenly matched. Like it or hate it I think that should influence penalties somewhat when mistakes are made. I don’t doubt that everyone on here wants to see more racing but the current regs do handicap that somewhat. At the same time it does keep things exciting when drivers are pushing each other like that for 20 odd laps – it’s a delicate balance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9595
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Without doubt after making a mistake the priority is probably to maintain your position, some images are quite telling, Vettel looking in his mirror as he squeezes Hamilton towards the barrier, seemingly this was also noted by the stewards.

Image

This image shows one of the important differences between Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019. Vettel literally left no room at all on the track. Hamilton left barely a car's width (debatable by inches as to whether a car could have fit) on the track. In Monaco the track is right up against the barrier. In Canada, the wall is several feet off the track. But Vettel's right tires are over the white line so it's not even debatable that he left enough room. He didn't leave any room.

A bit over the top on the dramatization, the normal racing line is outside the white line. You think he should leave more than two car´s widths of room to the wall, don´t think that would have been possible?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 636
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Without doubt after making a mistake the priority is probably to maintain your position, some images are quite telling, Vettel looking in his mirror as he squeezes Hamilton towards the barrier, seemingly this was also noted by the stewards.

Image

This image shows one of the important differences between Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019. Vettel literally left no room at all on the track. Hamilton left barely a car's width (debatable by inches as to whether a car could have fit) on the track. In Monaco the track is right up against the barrier. In Canada, the wall is several feet off the track. But Vettel's right tires are over the white line so it's not even debatable that he left enough room. He didn't leave any room.

A bit over the top on the dramatization, the normal racing line is outside the white line. You think he should leave more than two car´s widths of room to the wall, don´t think that would have been possible?

Things like this are so frustrating on here. Go ahead and dispute the penalty, but disputing track limits just weakens any argument. Clutching at straws I guess after the stewards latest statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6317
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Without doubt after making a mistake the priority is probably to maintain your position, some images are quite telling, Vettel looking in his mirror as he squeezes Hamilton towards the barrier, seemingly this was also noted by the stewards.

Image

This image shows one of the important differences between Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019. Vettel literally left no room at all on the track. Hamilton left barely a car's width (debatable by inches as to whether a car could have fit) on the track. In Monaco the track is right up against the barrier. In Canada, the wall is several feet off the track. But Vettel's right tires are over the white line so it's not even debatable that he left enough room. He didn't leave any room.

A bit over the top on the dramatization, the normal racing line is outside the white line. You think he should leave more than two car´s widths of room to the wall, don´t think that would have been possible?

I think he failed to leave any room at all and that's why he was penalized. Do you disagree?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6317
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
IMO Vettel did direct his car to the right when he rejoined. He threw a block on Hamilton. He could have kept hard left, but that would have really slowed him down and allowed Hamilton an easy pass.

I am not condoning Vettel's action during or after the race, he acted like a jerk. But we need to understand what was going on inside his noggin. Ferrari has been trounced so far this year, both with sub-par performance, mechanical failures, or mistakes. But at the previous race in Monaco, Vettel finally secured a second place, breaking the Mercedes 1-2 run. Finally, a ray of sunshine for the team. Then he wins pole at Montreal, and is leading the race. This may be the big breakthrough the team really really needed.

The driver earns an insane amount of money, and along with that princely sum comes a boatload of pressure. Make no mistake, the powers at Ferrari were leaning on their drivers and the team for better results. So when Vettel was informed that he received a five second penalty, his brain exploded and the red mist came down hard.

And that is his Achille's heel, Vettel can revert to a three year old when things go horribly wrong instead of acting like a mature adult accepting the misfortune, and moving on. He refused to lose, I can respect that. But he acted a jerk, I do not condone or respect that part.

Any astute observer would have noticed that Ricciardo threw a few questionable blocks against Verstappen going down the long straight. IMO that had the potential for a very bad crash and was a much worse offense. But Ricciardo also saw his best result of this year, and also finishing ahead of his teammate. His scenario was very similar to Vettel. A ray of sunshine that was defended excessively.

But when you assign the label "defending excessively" to any driver, almost every one is guilty of this action at one time or another.

But so freaking what? Did he murder and eat a baby? All he did was do a few very stupid acts of defiance drama. I know many racers, and in the industry you learn to put the last race behind you the second the checkered flag flies and start concentrating on the next race. The main group of people who keep this story alive are the fans and TV commentators who are paid to stoke the flames of controversy and drama.

Agreed. Putting things behind you is a valuable lesson to learn in life. In my opinion this is the most excessive overreaction to a penalty that I can remember when you consider the penalty itself and what it was handed out for. Hopefully the media won't drag this out further and hopefully this forum will drop it too before long.

The bold part is quite funny considering you´re one of (if not the) most vocal on the subject.

I don't have a problem with the penalty at all actually.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9595
sandman1347 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Without doubt after making a mistake the priority is probably to maintain your position, some images are quite telling, Vettel looking in his mirror as he squeezes Hamilton towards the barrier, seemingly this was also noted by the stewards.

Image

This image shows one of the important differences between Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019. Vettel literally left no room at all on the track. Hamilton left barely a car's width (debatable by inches as to whether a car could have fit) on the track. In Monaco the track is right up against the barrier. In Canada, the wall is several feet off the track. But Vettel's right tires are over the white line so it's not even debatable that he left enough room. He didn't leave any room.

A bit over the top on the dramatization, the normal racing line is outside the white line. You think he should leave more than two car´s widths of room to the wall, don´t think that would have been possible?

I think he failed to leave any room at all and that's why he was penalized. Do you disagree?

I don´t agree or disagree. He left a similar amount as Hamilton in Monaco.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Argentum 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