planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:47 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%  [ 25 ]
As per the rules, the penalty is correct, but it seems harsh and shouldn't have been awarded 14%  14%  [ 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%  [ 22 ]
Penalty not justified at all, Vettel had no way to comply with what the rules state 28%  28%  [ 24 ]
Problem is the rules, not the stewards 5%  5%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 87
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6604
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.

What a dishonest statement. Max in Japan last year. Pretty much the exact same thing and the exact same penalty.


Who are you to call his statement dishonest? You don't know what he remembers or doesn't.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6317
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.

What a dishonest statement. Max in Japan last year. Pretty much the exact same thing and the exact same penalty.


Who are you to call his statement dishonest? You don't know what he remembers or doesn't.

I do know that he and I have discussed that incident since the race yesterday more than once. Since you apparently didn't know that, perhaps you shouldn't have inserted yourself into the conversation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 956
Location: Kansas
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No it wasn't that different. The incident that is different is the one you want to compare it to (Monaco 2016). Max's incident was extremely similar. Both Max and Seb went off at high speed. Both Kimi and Lewis went around the outside (the only way they could have gone) and both Max and Seb kept their foot in it in order to keep the position; resulting in an unsafe return to the track. Your little narration of the incidents is irrelevant to the fact that they were both essentially the same and they were both slam dunk penalties.

Verstappen was in complete control of his car and new exactly what he was doing. Vettel was fighting the car over the grass and on the exit.

Anyway, despite your amazing arrogance, it does seem like 90% of the people who have driven an F1 car before disagree with your assessment. But of course you know better than all of them.

90% huh? A very specific number...I'd hate to smell the place you pulled that out of. Appeals to authority aside, let me ask you this; did Vettel rejoin the track in an unsafe manner?

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.



There is one other driver who endorsed the penalty and he was designated by Formula 1 and the FIA. That driver was Emanuele Pirro. He had more views and camera angles than any other of the drivers you mentioned.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6604
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.

What a dishonest statement. Max in Japan last year. Pretty much the exact same thing and the exact same penalty.


Who are you to call his statement dishonest? You don't know what he remembers or doesn't.

I do know that he and I have discussed that incident since the race yesterday more than once. Since you apparently didn't know that, perhaps you shouldn't have inserted yourself into the conversation.


sir, Yes, sir!!!

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Mort Canard wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No it wasn't that different. The incident that is different is the one you want to compare it to (Monaco 2016). Max's incident was extremely similar. Both Max and Seb went off at high speed. Both Kimi and Lewis went around the outside (the only way they could have gone) and both Max and Seb kept their foot in it in order to keep the position; resulting in an unsafe return to the track. Your little narration of the incidents is irrelevant to the fact that they were both essentially the same and they were both slam dunk penalties.

Verstappen was in complete control of his car and new exactly what he was doing. Vettel was fighting the car over the grass and on the exit.

Anyway, despite your amazing arrogance, it does seem like 90% of the people who have driven an F1 car before disagree with your assessment. But of course you know better than all of them.

90% huh? A very specific number...I'd hate to smell the place you pulled that out of. Appeals to authority aside, let me ask you this; did Vettel rejoin the track in an unsafe manner?

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.



There is one other driver who endorsed the penalty and he was designated by Formula 1 and the FIA. That driver was Emanuele Pirro. He had more views and camera angles than any other of the drivers you mentioned.

Plus telemetry.

_________________
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 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 956
Location: Kansas
pokerman wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
90% huh? A very specific number...I'd hate to smell the place you pulled that out of. Appeals to authority aside, let me ask you this; did Vettel rejoin the track in an unsafe manner?

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.



There is one other driver who endorsed the penalty and he was designated by Formula 1 and the FIA. That driver was Emanuele Pirro. He had more views and camera angles than any other of the drivers you mentioned.

Plus telemetry.

:thumbup: :nod:

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7324
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No it wasn't that different. The incident that is different is the one you want to compare it to (Monaco 2016). Max's incident was extremely similar. Both Max and Seb went off at high speed. Both Kimi and Lewis went around the outside (the only way they could have gone) and both Max and Seb kept their foot in it in order to keep the position; resulting in an unsafe return to the track. Your little narration of the incidents is irrelevant to the fact that they were both essentially the same and they were both slam dunk penalties.

Verstappen was in complete control of his car and new exactly what he was doing. Vettel was fighting the car over the grass and on the exit.

Anyway, despite your amazing arrogance, it does seem like 90% of the people who have driven an F1 car before disagree with your assessment. But of course you know better than all of them.

90% huh? A very specific number...I'd hate to smell the place you pulled that out of. Appeals to authority aside, let me ask you this; did Vettel rejoin the track in an unsafe manner?

I'd dare guess the same place you pulled out this one?

"It won't matter. 95% of F1 fans are incapable of looking at things impartially."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 1137
As per the written rules Vettel is guilty and deserves the penalty. The stewards who have to view the incidents as 100% impartial. black and white made the right call. The way the rules are written leaves no grey area for them to be applied circumstantial. As all rules are written in this manor or people will find ways to contest them (loop holes).

As a racer it 100% sucks to have a win taken away because someone else deemed it. I sympathize with Vettel and would have made the same argument of where do you want me to go. But the natural instinct of anyone in the lead is hold that position at all cost. He made the error. In a state of panic he tried to recovery the car and hold station making it a dangerous situation for his fellow competitor. Which further validated the written rules.

“ Never leave it in the hands of the judges.” Is a famous quote used in boxing and This is exactly what Vettel did by making the error. He took something that was completely in his control and handed it over for someone else to decide his fate.

As for the decision coming during the race, this situation imo did merit such a call mid race as for a decision after the race changing the results would have been worse for the sport. What I do hope moving forward is that more consistent stewarding comes from it and when it’s time to make tough calls like this, they are made regardless of what position or team the rules are applied too.

_________________
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 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 116
Option 3 is the only sensible one for me. Seems harsh but it's the stewards sticking to the rules.

He has no one to blame but himself, unfortunately.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Junglist wrote:
Option 3 is the only sensible one for me. Seems harsh but it's the stewards sticking to the rules.

He has no one to blame but himself, unfortunately.

Indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOT134F0jKU

They viewed it that after fully gaining control of his car Vettel opened the steering twice in order to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier.

_________________
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 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1855
pokerman wrote:
Junglist wrote:
Option 3 is the only sensible one for me. Seems harsh but it's the stewards sticking to the rules.

He has no one to blame but himself, unfortunately.

Indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOT134F0jKU

They viewed it that after fully gaining control of his car Vettel opened the steering twice in order to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier.


Lol the same numpties who claimed Ferrari was 5/10ths ahead of Mercedes and Mercedes messed up this season already after pre season testing!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Junglist wrote:
Option 3 is the only sensible one for me. Seems harsh but it's the stewards sticking to the rules.

He has no one to blame but himself, unfortunately.

Indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOT134F0jKU

They viewed it that after fully gaining control of his car Vettel opened the steering twice in order to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier.


Lol the same numpties who claimed Ferrari was 5/10ths ahead of Mercedes and Mercedes messed up this season already after pre season testing!

I guess that's before Mercedes introduced their updated car to the second test?

The video is discussing factual things rather than making predictions.

_________________
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 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4671
pokerman wrote:
Junglist wrote:
Option 3 is the only sensible one for me. Seems harsh but it's the stewards sticking to the rules.

He has no one to blame but himself, unfortunately.

Indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOT134F0jKU

They viewed it that after fully gaining control of his car Vettel opened the steering twice in order to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier.

I doubt that anyone can judge the intent of Vettel without seeing the actual telemetry for final conclusion. But, if that is potentially the truth, than how does Hamilton do this same thing all his racing carrier without being penalized?

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:09 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1046
Location: UK
Lt. Drebin wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Junglist wrote:
Option 3 is the only sensible one for me. Seems harsh but it's the stewards sticking to the rules.

He has no one to blame but himself, unfortunately.

Indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOT134F0jKU

They viewed it that after fully gaining control of his car Vettel opened the steering twice in order to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier.

I doubt that anyone can judge the intent of Vettel without seeing the actual telemetry for final conclusion. But, if that is potentially the truth, than how does Hamilton do this same thing all his racing carrier without being penalized?


I think the factor that changes this is the fact there is a barrier. I have a pet theory that stewarding decisions are driven by 'crash avoidance' if you can squeeze safely the driver gets more leeway!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
Option or Prime wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Junglist wrote:
Option 3 is the only sensible one for me. Seems harsh but it's the stewards sticking to the rules.

He has no one to blame but himself, unfortunately.

Indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOT134F0jKU

They viewed it that after fully gaining control of his car Vettel opened the steering twice in order to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier.

I doubt that anyone can judge the intent of Vettel without seeing the actual telemetry for final conclusion. But, if that is potentially the truth, than how does Hamilton do this same thing all his racing carrier without being penalized?


I think the factor that changes this is the fact there is a barrier. I have a pet theory that stewarding decisions are driven by 'crash avoidance' if you can squeeze safely the driver gets more leeway!

The funny thing is, if there was no barrier and Hamilton pulled off the overtake, then Lewis would have been penalized for overtaking off the circuit.

If the argument is that "Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the circuit" instead of "Vettel rejoined unsafely", then the penalty is even more indefensible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
The closest thing to this incident I could find in history was this battle between Villeneuve and Hill, beginning at 0:31


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ8ZX6sT-tA

Hill slammed on the brakes instead of trying to go around the outside. Otherwise the incident is almost identical, even the corner is similar.


Was there anyone at the time who thought that Villeneuve deserved a penalty?


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

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
Lt. Drebin wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Junglist wrote:
Option 3 is the only sensible one for me. Seems harsh but it's the stewards sticking to the rules.

He has no one to blame but himself, unfortunately.

Indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOT134F0jKU

They viewed it that after fully gaining control of his car Vettel opened the steering twice in order to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier.

I doubt that anyone can judge the intent of Vettel without seeing the actual telemetry for final conclusion. But, if that is potentially the truth, than how does Hamilton do this same thing all his racing carrier without being penalized?

We are not talking about a normal racing incident, Vettel left the track and then it's on him to rejoin safely which doesn't include forcing drivers off the track or towards barriers.

_________________
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 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
KingVoid wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Junglist wrote:
Option 3 is the only sensible one for me. Seems harsh but it's the stewards sticking to the rules.

He has no one to blame but himself, unfortunately.

Indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOT134F0jKU

They viewed it that after fully gaining control of his car Vettel opened the steering twice in order to squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier.

I doubt that anyone can judge the intent of Vettel without seeing the actual telemetry for final conclusion. But, if that is potentially the truth, than how does Hamilton do this same thing all his racing carrier without being penalized?


I think the factor that changes this is the fact there is a barrier. I have a pet theory that stewarding decisions are driven by 'crash avoidance' if you can squeeze safely the driver gets more leeway!

The funny thing is, if there was no barrier and Hamilton pulled off the overtake, then Lewis would have been penalized for overtaking off the circuit.

If the argument is that "Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the circuit" instead of "Vettel rejoined unsafely", then the penalty is even more indefensible.

It's part of the same thing Vettel doesn't have the same rights after he has just rejoined 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 6:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
KingVoid wrote:
The closest thing to this incident I could find in history was this battle between Villeneuve and Hill, beginning at 0:31


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ8ZX6sT-tA

Hill slammed on the brakes instead of trying to go around the outside. Otherwise the incident is almost identical, even the corner is similar.


Was there anyone at the time who thought that Villeneuve deserved a penalty?

Hill was never alongside JV's car also the rules have changed over the years, some digging to go back nearly 25 years, with today's stewards I don't believe Senna would have got away with what he did in Suzuka 1990.

_________________
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 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
pokerman wrote:
Hill was never alongside JV's car

That's because Hill slammed on the brakes instead of trying to go around the outside, look at his loss in momentum.

Quote:
also the rules have changed over the years

Do you think what JV did there should have been a penalty, yes or no?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31100
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Hill was never alongside JV's car

That's because Hill slammed on the brakes instead of trying to go around the outside, look at his loss in momentum.

Quote:
also the rules have changed over the years

Do you think what JV did there should have been a penalty, yes or no?

No for the reason I gave and the two incidents are different.

Seems like one of your go to guys Wurz has come out and said that the stewards had no other option but to penalise 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 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
pokerman wrote:
No for the reason I gave and the two incidents are different.

What Hill did is different from what Hamilton did (one slammed on the brakes, the other tried to go into a closing gap). Villeneuve's mistake is identical to Vettel.

pokerman wrote:
Seems like one of your go to guys Wurz has come out and said that the stewards had no other option but to penalise Vettel.

I'm not making any argument from authority right now, but if you want to go down that route, the vast majority of drivers still think the penalty was nonsense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2279
KingVoid wrote:
The closest thing to this incident I could find in history was this battle between Villeneuve and Hill, beginning at 0:31


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ8ZX6sT-tA

Hill slammed on the brakes instead of trying to go around the outside. Otherwise the incident is almost identical, even the corner is similar.


Was there anyone at the time who thought that Villeneuve deserved a penalty?


Lol, really? That's the closest you can find? Granted you have to ignore verstappen vs. raikkonen because it doesn't fit your agenda, but this is also massively different for many reasons, mainly the fact that when he returns to track he doesn't put him in the wall because he isn't even alongside him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
Verstappen was on tarmac and in complete control of his car.

Hill was not alongside Villeneuve only because he braked instead of trying to drive around the outside.

If you can find a better example, be my guest. I cannot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 1766
Location: Canada
I agree with those of you who say "just a racing incident". I feel no penalty had been assigned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:24 am
Posts: 684
KingVoid wrote:
Verstappen was on tarmac and in complete control of his car.

Hill was not alongside Villeneuve only because he braked instead of trying to drive around the outside.

If you can find a better example, be my guest. I cannot.

No he wasn't. He was on AstroTurf. Very dusty and slippery.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2279
KingVoid wrote:
Verstappen was on tarmac and in complete control of his car.

Hill was not alongside Villeneuve only because he braked instead of trying to drive around the outside.

If you can find a better example, be my guest. I cannot.


Funny looking tarmac


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
angrypirate wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Verstappen was on tarmac and in complete control of his car.

Hill was not alongside Villeneuve only because he braked instead of trying to drive around the outside.

If you can find a better example, be my guest. I cannot.

No he wasn't. He was on AstroTurf. Very dusty and slippery.

AstroTurf and tarmac tend to have a lot more grip on them than grass.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
jimmyj wrote:
I agree with those of you who say "just a racing incident". I feel no penalty had been assigned.

:nod: :thumbup:

People who support the penalty decision here want every little incident penalized, which will be the death of racing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2279
KingVoid wrote:
angrypirate wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Verstappen was on tarmac and in complete control of his car.

Hill was not alongside Villeneuve only because he braked instead of trying to drive around the outside.

If you can find a better example, be my guest. I cannot.

No he wasn't. He was on AstroTurf. Very dusty and slippery.

AstroTurf and tarmac tend to have a lot more grip on them than grass.


This just makes me.think you've never stood on astro. You can literally run and slide on your feet like a kid with socks on a dance floor.

Were talking about dry grass here not wet, and astro is very slippy dry and wet


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
Why do you think an F1 car looks so different from a rally car?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:24 am
Posts: 684
KingVoid wrote:
angrypirate wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Verstappen was on tarmac and in complete control of his car.

Hill was not alongside Villeneuve only because he braked instead of trying to drive around the outside.

If you can find a better example, be my guest. I cannot.

No he wasn't. He was on AstroTurf. Very dusty and slippery.

AstroTurf and tarmac tend to have a lot more grip on them than grass.

:lol: :lol: :lol: AstroTurf. Also known as fake grass. And you're saying it has a lot more grip than grass, nearer to tarmac levels of grip? SERIOUSLY?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3123
Location: UK
pokerman wrote:
Seems like one of your go to guys Wurz has come out and said that the stewards had no other option but to penalise Vettel.

Note the wording. "They had no option but to penalise Vettel" is not equivalent to "the penalty was right". The stewards applied the rules correctly, but I think what many people here are arguing is that the rules are poorly written as they make no distinction between a car uncontrollably spearing across the track into the path of another and a driver actively deciding to swerve across and put his rival in the wall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6317
j man wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Seems like one of your go to guys Wurz has come out and said that the stewards had no other option but to penalise Vettel.

Note the wording. "They had no option but to penalise Vettel" is not equivalent to "the penalty was right". The stewards applied the rules correctly, but I think what many people here are arguing is that the rules are poorly written as they make no distinction between a car uncontrollably spearing across the track into the path of another and a driver actively deciding to swerve across and put his rival in the wall.

That's correct. They do not make that distinction. They simply state that you cannot return to the track in an unsafe manner and force another driver to take avoiding action.

My question to you is; do you feel Vettel should be permitted to continue in that situation and maintain the lead; having only kept it by returning to the track unsafely and forcing Hamilton to hit the brakes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:58 pm
Posts: 103
Okay.. First.. Let's everyone stop and take a breath here, I know some are saying the rules state X, yand z but but that sounds like using the letter of the law against the spirit of the law

but as I said on other tracks it may have been easy for Hamilton to run wide and maybe even pass

And I'd love them to do computer simulations to show what if he did other things and how many would in ve him barrelling into the wall collecting Hamilton or damaging how own car in other ways

But an important thing is neither crashed and both fought to the flag. Penalty severity should be based on the end result

I saw it was he came off the grasss and tried to get away but the back fishtail Ed a bit.. But what do I know I'm just a Scottish guy with no inside kniwlwdge


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3123
Location: UK
sandman1347 wrote:
j man wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Seems like one of your go to guys Wurz has come out and said that the stewards had no other option but to penalise Vettel.

Note the wording. "They had no option but to penalise Vettel" is not equivalent to "the penalty was right". The stewards applied the rules correctly, but I think what many people here are arguing is that the rules are poorly written as they make no distinction between a car uncontrollably spearing across the track into the path of another and a driver actively deciding to swerve across and put his rival in the wall.

That's correct. They do not make that distinction. They simply state that you cannot return to the track in an unsafe manner and force another driver to take avoiding action.

My question to you is; do you feel Vettel should be permitted to continue in that situation and maintain the lead; having only kept it by returning to the track unsafely and forcing Hamilton to hit the brakes?

Honestly, yes. I mean I agree it's not really fair on Hamilton, but ultimately it's an unfortunate consequence of this particular track layout. Montreal is narrow and the walls are close in to the track and this makes this sort of blocking incident likely.

For me the primary reason why penalties are dished out is to punish dangerous or unsportsmanlike driving and to deter drivers from doing it again in future, rather than as a method to contrive the "right" result. In this instance Vettel's only offence was to go too quickly into a corner and go off the track, everything that happened afterwards was largely beyond his control. I don't see any dangerous or unsportsmanlike actions on Vettel's part that are worthy of punishment. What will this penalty deter him from doing differently in the future?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6317
j man wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
j man wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Seems like one of your go to guys Wurz has come out and said that the stewards had no other option but to penalise Vettel.

Note the wording. "They had no option but to penalise Vettel" is not equivalent to "the penalty was right". The stewards applied the rules correctly, but I think what many people here are arguing is that the rules are poorly written as they make no distinction between a car uncontrollably spearing across the track into the path of another and a driver actively deciding to swerve across and put his rival in the wall.

That's correct. They do not make that distinction. They simply state that you cannot return to the track in an unsafe manner and force another driver to take avoiding action.

My question to you is; do you feel Vettel should be permitted to continue in that situation and maintain the lead; having only kept it by returning to the track unsafely and forcing Hamilton to hit the brakes?

Honestly, yes. I mean I agree it's not really fair on Hamilton, but ultimately it's an unfortunate consequence of this particular track layout. Montreal is narrow and the walls are close in to the track and this makes this sort of blocking incident likely.

For me the primary reason why penalties are dished out is to punish dangerous or unsportsmanlike driving and to deter drivers from doing it again in future, rather than as a method to contrive the "right" result. In this instance Vettel's only offence was to go too quickly into a corner and go off the track, everything that happened afterwards was largely beyond his control. I don't see any dangerous or unsportsmanlike actions on Vettel's part that are worthy of punishment. What will this penalty deter him from doing differently in the future?

Let's ignore for a moment that the rule doesn't say anything about intent and just look at the bolded part. Didn't the stewards report clarify that Vettel did indeed regain control in time to avoid blocking Hamilton and that he simply failed to do so? Why should that be ignored? The report also showed that he kept his foot on the throttle despite going off. Granted I don't think Vettel did anything that Hamilton wouldn't have done had the roles been reversed. I think any driver would have instinctively tried to protect the lead there but he DID try to protect the lead. This narrative that the car was just out of control until such time as it closed the door to Hamilton just isn't true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:34 pm
Posts: 55
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1358
I may not be Mario Andretti and thus my opinion may be invalid, but I think the function of the stewards is to enforce the rules of the sport.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


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

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6604
Location: Nebraska, USA
You are right, you are not Mario Andretti. However, you are entitled to your opinion.
;)

If we eliminate "racing incidents" out of F1, replacing them with penalties for every incident, the sport of F1 will die. It is easy to find fault in virtually every incident if that is what you wish the sport to be...It seems some are leaning in that direction...when convenient.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


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, F1 MERCENARY, Option or Prime 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