planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:49 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Should Verstappen get a penalty for his overtake?
Yes, it was against the rules and I agree 36%  36%  [ 36 ]
Yes, he should get a penalty according to the rules, but I don't agree 12%  12%  [ 12 ]
No, he shouldn't get a penalty, acceptable overtake 52%  52%  [ 51 ]
No, he shouldn't get a penalty, but LeClerc should get one for hitting Max 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 99
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10280
Location: Ireland
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Are you talking on behalf of the sport?

:uhoh:
Don't be a knob. The sport, by virtue of its own decisions, does not agree with the statements being made that poster

Ok, is this how we are talking in here now?

The sport has proven very inconsistent with their decisions during the years, it doesn't disagree with F1 Racer, it also disagrees with itself at times. So your blanket statement is wrong to say the least, the stewards inconsistency being a topic brought up very often to be ignored.

Point me to one incident the same as this one where the attacking driver got a penalty. Masi has said incidents from over 3 years ago are not relevant. So give me one incident in the last 3 years with wheel-on-wheel contact, where the defending driver ended up beyond the track limits on corner exit and the attacking driver got a penalty

If you can't then F1 Racer's statement is wrong. And additionally if you can't then the stewards have been consistent in not applying a penalty on this occasion

Nice try to shift the goals, but the onus is not on me to find you an incident to prove why this overtake was on the naughty side.

It seems that you have the opinion that a rule needs to be validated somehow by a decision. Not really, the rule is there, if the stewards didn't enforce it correctly then it is not the rule that is wrong, it is the stewards that need to enforce it. Leclrec was at the apex side by side with Max and was crowded out of the track. This much is clear.

Wrong. The onus is on you and/or F1 Racer to show us how and why this incident is:
F1 Racer wrote:
never acceptable then and it's still not acceptable now

Someone back this statement up. Otherwise anyone on this side of the fence is talking out their hole

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10280
Location: Ireland
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:

Except they didn't in Canada when they punished Vettel, or Japan 2018 when they punished Max.

According to the stewards at least, it only seems unacceptable to crowd another driver off the circuit when this is also part of a recent rejoin of the circuit from an off-track excursion. If either of the drivers have not left the circuit recently, then they are indeed free to squeeze and crowd each other off the track as they please. Only the rules don't really say this, they say that it is never acceptable, and most rational, objective people agree with it never being acceptable due to it negatively affecting the quality of the racing.

Not only that but it is literally unfair to the driver on the outside that has allowed the inside driver the apex, (without chopping across and 'claiming the apex himself' and crowding the inside driver up the inside kerbing like Max vs Ocon in Brazil 2018), and so he expects to be allowed the corner exit kerbing in return without being crowded off beyond the outside kerbing by the greedy inside driver that wants both the apex and the optimal corner exit trajectory.

They're not the same thing at all. Please stop referring to incidents that aren't comparable. Vettel-Hamilton has nothing to do with Verstappen-Leclerc


You don't explain why they aren't different though. The stewards were not happy that Vettel forced or attempted to force Hamilton off the circuit following his unsafe rejoin, as did Max against Kimi in Japan 2018. So in that sense, these incidents are all similar, forcing an innocent driver off the track is the issue in all of these cases, including Austria 2019.

They're not comparable at all! Vettel and Hamilton didn't even touch each other! There's no "in that sense", they're not comparable in any universe

In Canada the lead driver made an unforced error, rejoined the track in an unsafe manner and caused the attacking driver to take avoiding action. A penalty was handed out to him. What has it got in common with this? It was a battle for 1st and a Ferrari was involved - that's about it


Hamilton decided to brake to avoid contact due to there being a wall there. If there was no wall and instead a concrete run off, he would not have braked and instead would have taken to the outside part of the track to try and complete his pass. The stewards would still have penalised Seb, no matter what avoiding action Hamilton chose to take. The existence or non-existence of a wall does not affect the application of track limit rules, but it may affect the actual avoiding action taken by one of the drivers.

Instead look at Japan 2018, an incident only a few months ago where Kimi was edged off by Max in the same way as Leclerc was edged off. Charlie said it was a slam dunk penalty because of what Max did to Kimi. Well Max did the same to Leclerc in Austria, albeit not recently following a track rejoin. The same offence was still committed on Leclerc however.

You've providing more example of how the incidents are different. Canada had a wall - that's different. The stewards penalised the defending driver - that's different. The attacking driver took avoiding action - that's different

A wall being there or not absolutely does impact how the incident is judged. It's treated totally different by the stewards

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7715
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
:uhoh:
Don't be a knob. The sport, by virtue of its own decisions, does not agree with the statements being made that poster

Ok, is this how we are talking in here now?

The sport has proven very inconsistent with their decisions during the years, it doesn't disagree with F1 Racer, it also disagrees with itself at times. So your blanket statement is wrong to say the least, the stewards inconsistency being a topic brought up very often to be ignored.

Point me to one incident the same as this one where the attacking driver got a penalty. Masi has said incidents from over 3 years ago are not relevant. So give me one incident in the last 3 years with wheel-on-wheel contact, where the defending driver ended up beyond the track limits on corner exit and the attacking driver got a penalty

If you can't then F1 Racer's statement is wrong. And additionally if you can't then the stewards have been consistent in not applying a penalty on this occasion

Nice try to shift the goals, but the onus is not on me to find you an incident to prove why this overtake was on the naughty side.

It seems that you have the opinion that a rule needs to be validated somehow by a decision. Not really, the rule is there, if the stewards didn't enforce it correctly then it is not the rule that is wrong, it is the stewards that need to enforce it. Leclrec was at the apex side by side with Max and was crowded out of the track. This much is clear.

Wrong. The onus is on you and/or F1 Racer to show us how and why this incident is:
F1 Racer wrote:
never acceptable then and it's still not acceptable now

Someone back this statement up. Otherwise anyone on this side of the fence is talking out their hole

First my argument was that the rule is not really being applied and this is a mistake; you asked me to find an incident where the rule was applied...

Now you want me to back a statement that I didn't make...

I think you are getting a bit frustrated here, you need to cool down.

The reality is that Max crowded a car that was alongside him as the rules describe it. That's not talking out of anyone's hole


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7715
mcdo wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:
They're not the same thing at all. Please stop referring to incidents that aren't comparable. Vettel-Hamilton has nothing to do with Verstappen-Leclerc


You don't explain why they aren't different though. The stewards were not happy that Vettel forced or attempted to force Hamilton off the circuit following his unsafe rejoin, as did Max against Kimi in Japan 2018. So in that sense, these incidents are all similar, forcing an innocent driver off the track is the issue in all of these cases, including Austria 2019.

They're not comparable at all! Vettel and Hamilton didn't even touch each other! There's no "in that sense", they're not comparable in any universe

In Canada the lead driver made an unforced error, rejoined the track in an unsafe manner and caused the attacking driver to take avoiding action. A penalty was handed out to him. What has it got in common with this? It was a battle for 1st and a Ferrari was involved - that's about it


Hamilton decided to brake to avoid contact due to there being a wall there. If there was no wall and instead a concrete run off, he would not have braked and instead would have taken to the outside part of the track to try and complete his pass. The stewards would still have penalised Seb, no matter what avoiding action Hamilton chose to take. The existence or non-existence of a wall does not affect the application of track limit rules, but it may affect the actual avoiding action taken by one of the drivers.

Instead look at Japan 2018, an incident only a few months ago where Kimi was edged off by Max in the same way as Leclerc was edged off. Charlie said it was a slam dunk penalty because of what Max did to Kimi. Well Max did the same to Leclerc in Austria, albeit not recently following a track rejoin. The same offence was still committed on Leclerc however.

You've providing more example of how the incidents are different. Canada had a wall - that's different. The stewards penalised the defending driver - that's different. The attacking driver took avoiding action - that's different

A wall being there or not absolutely does impact how the incident is judged. It's treated totally different by the stewards

Completely wrong, check the link I provided above. The stewards certainly took into consideration that if Hamilton didn't slow down to avoid the wall he'd be crowded off the track, that's why they gave the penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
Just watching the highlights of the race again, Norris gives Hamilton space at turn three on lap 1 and as a result Hamilton passes him down into turn four, (like Leclerc does on lap 68 to Max). Should Norris have just accelerated to the edge of the track and forced Hamilton off at turn three? It would have been fair and hard racing right? ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1907
F1 Racer wrote:
Just watching the highlights of the race again, Norris gives Hamilton space at turn three on lap 1 and as a result Hamilton passes him down into turn four, (like Leclerc does on lap 68 to Max). Should Norris have just accelerated to the edge of the track and forced Hamilton off at turn three? It would have been fair and hard racing right? ;)

If Norris' steering was on full lock, then yes.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Just watching the highlights of the race again, Norris gives Hamilton space at turn three on lap 1 and as a result Hamilton passes him down into turn four, (like Leclerc does on lap 68 to Max). Should Norris have just accelerated to the edge of the track and forced Hamilton off at turn three? It would have been fair and hard racing right? ;)

If Norris' steering was on full lock, then yes.


And all of the other drivers on the inside into turn three on lap 1, can they all just floor the accelerator whilst being on full lock as they move their car fully towards the outside kerbing and not have any regard to cars circulating on their outside? In the opening lap of the race, most drivers keep their racing etiquette up and do not crowd outside drivers off the road, instead they exit corners on a slower and tighter trajectory, as often they don't even know how many cars could be positioned to their outside in these moments. I don't see why this etiquette just disappears when it is 1 vs 1 combat later on in the race where pushing the outside driver off the track is then deemed 'hard and fair' racing by the likes of Max.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10280
Location: Ireland
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
You don't explain why they aren't different though. The stewards were not happy that Vettel forced or attempted to force Hamilton off the circuit following his unsafe rejoin, as did Max against Kimi in Japan 2018. So in that sense, these incidents are all similar, forcing an innocent driver off the track is the issue in all of these cases, including Austria 2019.

They're not comparable at all! Vettel and Hamilton didn't even touch each other! There's no "in that sense", they're not comparable in any universe

In Canada the lead driver made an unforced error, rejoined the track in an unsafe manner and caused the attacking driver to take avoiding action. A penalty was handed out to him. What has it got in common with this? It was a battle for 1st and a Ferrari was involved - that's about it


Hamilton decided to brake to avoid contact due to there being a wall there. If there was no wall and instead a concrete run off, he would not have braked and instead would have taken to the outside part of the track to try and complete his pass. The stewards would still have penalised Seb, no matter what avoiding action Hamilton chose to take. The existence or non-existence of a wall does not affect the application of track limit rules, but it may affect the actual avoiding action taken by one of the drivers.

Instead look at Japan 2018, an incident only a few months ago where Kimi was edged off by Max in the same way as Leclerc was edged off. Charlie said it was a slam dunk penalty because of what Max did to Kimi. Well Max did the same to Leclerc in Austria, albeit not recently following a track rejoin. The same offence was still committed on Leclerc however.

You've providing more example of how the incidents are different. Canada had a wall - that's different. The stewards penalised the defending driver - that's different. The attacking driver took avoiding action - that's different

A wall being there or not absolutely does impact how the incident is judged. It's treated totally different by the stewards

Completely wrong, check the link I provided above. The stewards certainly took into consideration that if Hamilton didn't slow down to avoid the wall he'd be crowded off the track, that's why they gave the penalty.

Did you read your own link? It doesn't say anything to that effect. In fact, copy and paste here where you think that article suggests what you're saying

Also - that article states that there's precedent - Kimi and Max at Suzuka last year. There's a previous incident, here's a similar incident, the stewards penalised them both in the same manner. Something that can't be done with the Austria incident because nobody can provide a precedent

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10280
Location: Ireland
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Ok, is this how we are talking in here now?

The sport has proven very inconsistent with their decisions during the years, it doesn't disagree with F1 Racer, it also disagrees with itself at times. So your blanket statement is wrong to say the least, the stewards inconsistency being a topic brought up very often to be ignored.

Point me to one incident the same as this one where the attacking driver got a penalty. Masi has said incidents from over 3 years ago are not relevant. So give me one incident in the last 3 years with wheel-on-wheel contact, where the defending driver ended up beyond the track limits on corner exit and the attacking driver got a penalty

If you can't then F1 Racer's statement is wrong. And additionally if you can't then the stewards have been consistent in not applying a penalty on this occasion

Nice try to shift the goals, but the onus is not on me to find you an incident to prove why this overtake was on the naughty side.

It seems that you have the opinion that a rule needs to be validated somehow by a decision. Not really, the rule is there, if the stewards didn't enforce it correctly then it is not the rule that is wrong, it is the stewards that need to enforce it. Leclrec was at the apex side by side with Max and was crowded out of the track. This much is clear.

Wrong. The onus is on you and/or F1 Racer to show us how and why this incident is:
F1 Racer wrote:
never acceptable then and it's still not acceptable now

Someone back this statement up. Otherwise anyone on this side of the fence is talking out their hole

First my argument was that the rule is not really being applied and this is a mistake; you asked me to find an incident where the rule was applied...

Now you want me to back a statement that I didn't make...

I think you are getting a bit frustrated here, you need to cool down.

The reality is that Max crowded a car that was alongside him as the rules describe it. That's not talking out of anyone's hole

No no - you were calling me out for informing F1 Racer that the sport doesn't agree with his opinion. Whereas it's true - the people enforcing the rules in Formula 1 do not agree with F1 Racer's claim that Max's move is not acceptable

Then you went on about me making "blanket statements". Whereas I'm being very precise - the people enforcing the rules in Formula 1 do not agree with F1 Racer's claim that Max's move is not acceptable

And you're not able to show me a shred of evidence to counter it

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7715
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Point me to one incident the same as this one where the attacking driver got a penalty. Masi has said incidents from over 3 years ago are not relevant. So give me one incident in the last 3 years with wheel-on-wheel contact, where the defending driver ended up beyond the track limits on corner exit and the attacking driver got a penalty

If you can't then F1 Racer's statement is wrong. And additionally if you can't then the stewards have been consistent in not applying a penalty on this occasion

Nice try to shift the goals, but the onus is not on me to find you an incident to prove why this overtake was on the naughty side.

It seems that you have the opinion that a rule needs to be validated somehow by a decision. Not really, the rule is there, if the stewards didn't enforce it correctly then it is not the rule that is wrong, it is the stewards that need to enforce it. Leclrec was at the apex side by side with Max and was crowded out of the track. This much is clear.

Wrong. The onus is on you and/or F1 Racer to show us how and why this incident is:
F1 Racer wrote:
never acceptable then and it's still not acceptable now

Someone back this statement up. Otherwise anyone on this side of the fence is talking out their hole

First my argument was that the rule is not really being applied and this is a mistake; you asked me to find an incident where the rule was applied...

Now you want me to back a statement that I didn't make...

I think you are getting a bit frustrated here, you need to cool down.

The reality is that Max crowded a car that was alongside him as the rules describe it. That's not talking out of anyone's hole

No no - you were calling me out for informing F1 Racer that the sport doesn't agree with his opinion. Whereas it's true - the people enforcing the rules in Formula 1 do not agree with F1 Racer's claim that Max's move is not acceptable

Then you went on about me making "blanket statements". Whereas I'm being very precise - the people enforcing the rules in Formula 1 do not agree with F1 Racer's claim that Max's move is not acceptable

And you're not able to show me a shred of evidence to counter it

If you think that the three stewards speak for the whole sport then that's good for you. I just disagreed with that. The stewards time and again have been called for not being consistent, Steiner, Horner, Salo, Kvyat, etc. Just do a search for that and you'll see how many F1 bosses and drivers have spoken about it. Hell, Brawn came out this year and said that the stewards need to give better explanations for their decisions, give more insight. Everything points to the rules not being enforced evenly (not that it is easy). This is why Stewart called in the past for full-time stewards, to avoid inconsistent calls.

The stewards can and do get it wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7715
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:
They're not comparable at all! Vettel and Hamilton didn't even touch each other! There's no "in that sense", they're not comparable in any universe

In Canada the lead driver made an unforced error, rejoined the track in an unsafe manner and caused the attacking driver to take avoiding action. A penalty was handed out to him. What has it got in common with this? It was a battle for 1st and a Ferrari was involved - that's about it


Hamilton decided to brake to avoid contact due to there being a wall there. If there was no wall and instead a concrete run off, he would not have braked and instead would have taken to the outside part of the track to try and complete his pass. The stewards would still have penalised Seb, no matter what avoiding action Hamilton chose to take. The existence or non-existence of a wall does not affect the application of track limit rules, but it may affect the actual avoiding action taken by one of the drivers.

Instead look at Japan 2018, an incident only a few months ago where Kimi was edged off by Max in the same way as Leclerc was edged off. Charlie said it was a slam dunk penalty because of what Max did to Kimi. Well Max did the same to Leclerc in Austria, albeit not recently following a track rejoin. The same offence was still committed on Leclerc however.

You've providing more example of how the incidents are different. Canada had a wall - that's different. The stewards penalised the defending driver - that's different. The attacking driver took avoiding action - that's different

A wall being there or not absolutely does impact how the incident is judged. It's treated totally different by the stewards

Completely wrong, check the link I provided above. The stewards certainly took into consideration that if Hamilton didn't slow down to avoid the wall he'd be crowded off the track, that's why they gave the penalty.

Did you read your own link? It doesn't say anything to that effect. In fact, copy and paste here where you think that article suggests what you're saying

Also - that article states that there's precedent - Kimi and Max at Suzuka last year. There's a previous incident, here's a similar incident, the stewards penalised them both in the same manner. Something that can't be done with the Austria incident because nobody can provide a precedent

Yeah, I re-read it and I admit that I have this wrong, I mistook the "cutting off the route that Hamilton would have taken had he had clear space" to mean if there was clear space and not a wall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1907
F1 Racer wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Just watching the highlights of the race again, Norris gives Hamilton space at turn three on lap 1 and as a result Hamilton passes him down into turn four, (like Leclerc does on lap 68 to Max). Should Norris have just accelerated to the edge of the track and forced Hamilton off at turn three? It would have been fair and hard racing right? ;)

If Norris' steering was on full lock, then yes.


And all of the other drivers on the inside into turn three on lap 1, can they all just floor the accelerator whilst being on full lock as they move their car fully towards the outside kerbing and not have any regard to cars circulating on their outside? In the opening lap of the race, most drivers keep their racing etiquette up and do not crowd outside drivers off the road, instead they exit corners on a slower and tighter trajectory, as often they don't even know how many cars could be positioned to their outside in these moments. I don't see why this etiquette just disappears when it is 1 vs 1 combat later on in the race where pushing the outside driver off the track is then deemed 'hard and fair' racing by the likes of Max.

Lap 1 is different. Drivers are sometimes three or four-wide going into corners and they don't want to risk ruining their race by damaging their car, so they're obviously more hesitant.

Flooring the throttle would be a blatant shove and deserving of a penalty. I'm pretty certain the stewards in Austria reviewed the telemetry and concluded that Max didn't do anything like that. So you can keep using that wording all you want but it doesn't mean that's what he did.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Just watching the highlights of the race again, Norris gives Hamilton space at turn three on lap 1 and as a result Hamilton passes him down into turn four, (like Leclerc does on lap 68 to Max). Should Norris have just accelerated to the edge of the track and forced Hamilton off at turn three? It would have been fair and hard racing right? ;)

If Norris' steering was on full lock, then yes.


And all of the other drivers on the inside into turn three on lap 1, can they all just floor the accelerator whilst being on full lock as they move their car fully towards the outside kerbing and not have any regard to cars circulating on their outside? In the opening lap of the race, most drivers keep their racing etiquette up and do not crowd outside drivers off the road, instead they exit corners on a slower and tighter trajectory, as often they don't even know how many cars could be positioned to their outside in these moments. I don't see why this etiquette just disappears when it is 1 vs 1 combat later on in the race where pushing the outside driver off the track is then deemed 'hard and fair' racing by the likes of Max.

Lap 1 is different. Drivers are sometimes three or four-wide going into corners and they don't want to risk ruining their race by damaging their car, so they're obviously more hesitant.

Flooring the throttle would be a blatant shove and deserving of a penalty. I'm pretty certain the stewards in Austria reviewed the telemetry and concluded that Max didn't do anything like that. So you can keep using that wording all you want but it doesn't mean that's what he did.


Why is lap 1 different though, it's still goverened by the same rules as all of the other laps? There is nothing special about lap 1 that allows or doesn't allow drivers to get away with breaking rules. Why did Max not want to risk damaging his car against Leclerc's car on lap 69?

Flooring the throttle just means applying enough throttle so that even with maximum steering lock the car still arrives at the outside kerbing. This may be at 100% throttle, 90% throttle, 85% throttle or whatever. What is important is that the amount of throttle applied allowed them to close and crowd off another car.

Norris on lap 1 with Hamilton, and Max on lap 68 with Leclerc maybe only applied 65% throttle, (say), and Max on lap 69 with Leclerc maybe applied 92% throttle, (say), and this additional acceleration meant his car ended up moving wider and pushing Leclerc off the track. The precise amounts of throttle are irrelevant, only that in the crowding off situations the applied throttle while being on full lock is higher than it is when they deliberately decide to give space to their competitor while steering at full lock. The stewards only need to look at whether Leclerc was crowded off the track or not, (he was), they don't need to look at Max's telemetry other than to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7813
Location: Belgium
mcdo wrote:
Masi has said incidents from over 3 years ago are not relevant.
I read this too, but I wondered why he made that statement. I don't recall the rule on crowding a competitor off the track was changed around that time.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1875
F1 Racer wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
Greenman wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:

Chapter four of appendix L of the FIA sporting code. It states: "Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited."



.

Well that exactly matches Verstappen's behaviour - so the penalty SHOULD have been given against him.

.


How so?

"deliberate crowding"? It was neither deliberate, nor crowding. You can even see his steering input. His steering was in complete lock. If he was deliberately crowding him, he would've moved left. Never happened.

"abnormal change of direction"? That didn't happen either. He turned full right in a very predictable manner.

Maybe you need to reconsider what "exactly means" means.


His steering lock is not the only thing that affects his corner exit trajectory, he was also accelerating too harshly instead of being more gingerly with the throttle pedal until both cars had exited the corner with enough space, and then he can floor it. On lap 68 he did not just shove his foot fully to the floor and accelerate at full beans out of the corner, he gave up some exit speed so as to give Leclerc space, just as Leclerc gave up some entry speed to Max in the initial phase of the corner by taking the longer outside tragectory round the corner and surrendering the apex to Max, (in both lap 68 and lap 69 Leclerc did this).

On lap 68 Max played fair, on lap 69 Max did not play fair as he wanted the quicker apex route through the corner and also wanted the outside path for the corner exit so that he could get on the gas earlier and exit the corner as fast as possible to prevent Leclerc having an opportunity to race him down the next straight into turn four. Either Leclerc would be forced to brake and drop behind Max to avoid contact at corner exit, or Leclerc could stay on the outside and accept the contact at corner exit knowing that it would push him off the track and he would come off worse that way instead. In terms of racing etiquette Leclerc was fair on both laps, Max was only fair on one of the laps.


So a driver should just driver slowly in a corner, so the other person can fit nicely next to him. Why not just stop the car and park it on the side of the road? Wouldn't that be easier?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
ReservoirDog wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:

His steering lock is not the only thing that affects his corner exit trajectory, he was also accelerating too harshly instead of being more gingerly with the throttle pedal until both cars had exited the corner with enough space, and then he can floor it. On lap 68 he did not just shove his foot fully to the floor and accelerate at full beans out of the corner, he gave up some exit speed so as to give Leclerc space, just as Leclerc gave up some entry speed to Max in the initial phase of the corner by taking the longer outside tragectory round the corner and surrendering the apex to Max, (in both lap 68 and lap 69 Leclerc did this).

On lap 68 Max played fair, on lap 69 Max did not play fair as he wanted the quicker apex route through the corner and also wanted the outside path for the corner exit so that he could get on the gas earlier and exit the corner as fast as possible to prevent Leclerc having an opportunity to race him down the next straight into turn four. Either Leclerc would be forced to brake and drop behind Max to avoid contact at corner exit, or Leclerc could stay on the outside and accept the contact at corner exit knowing that it would push him off the track and he would come off worse that way instead. In terms of racing etiquette Leclerc was fair on both laps, Max was only fair on one of the laps.


So a driver should just driver slowly in a corner, so the other person can fit nicely next to him. Why not just stop the car and park it on the side of the road? Wouldn't that be easier?



Err... no, it is about fairness and respect. The driver on the outside does not just swerve his car across and turn into the apex of the corner as though the inside driver is not there. Examples of the outside driver turning into the inside driver and crowding him off the track on the inside are:

Schumacher vs Hill (Australia 1994)
Schumacher vs Villeneuve (Jerez 1997)
Ocon vs Raikkonen (Baku 2018)
Max vs Ocon (Brazil 2018)

The above examples are where the outside driver should give space to the inside driver and allow him to have the apex of the corner by driving a sub-optimal, longer outside trajectory through the corner.

In return the inside driver should not force himself fully to the exit kerbing as the outside driver is likely to have a part of their car there, so the inside driver will take the inside shorter path through the corner but will have to make a more compromised, slower exit where he takes a bit longer to get on the power than the outside driver who can fully use the outside kerbing.

Each driver gives something up to the other driver and takes something from them, it's (i) good, fair racing etiquette, (ii) is fully within the rules, (iii) leads to no car contact or damage during overtaking and (iv) allows overtaking moves to be completed or not completed over multiple corners and straights in a row so we get to see longer jostles for position where we are on the edge of our seat as we observe the outcome.

That is four very solid reasons as to why the drivers need to start racing like this and respecting the outside driver's right to be in that space on the outside of the corner. The racing will benefit from it massively, but it will only start happening if the stewards start clamping down consistently on the type of behaviour we see from the drivers like what Max did in Austria.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1907
F1 Racer wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:

His steering lock is not the only thing that affects his corner exit trajectory, he was also accelerating too harshly instead of being more gingerly with the throttle pedal until both cars had exited the corner with enough space, and then he can floor it. On lap 68 he did not just shove his foot fully to the floor and accelerate at full beans out of the corner, he gave up some exit speed so as to give Leclerc space, just as Leclerc gave up some entry speed to Max in the initial phase of the corner by taking the longer outside tragectory round the corner and surrendering the apex to Max, (in both lap 68 and lap 69 Leclerc did this).

On lap 68 Max played fair, on lap 69 Max did not play fair as he wanted the quicker apex route through the corner and also wanted the outside path for the corner exit so that he could get on the gas earlier and exit the corner as fast as possible to prevent Leclerc having an opportunity to race him down the next straight into turn four. Either Leclerc would be forced to brake and drop behind Max to avoid contact at corner exit, or Leclerc could stay on the outside and accept the contact at corner exit knowing that it would push him off the track and he would come off worse that way instead. In terms of racing etiquette Leclerc was fair on both laps, Max was only fair on one of the laps.


So a driver should just driver slowly in a corner, so the other person can fit nicely next to him. Why not just stop the car and park it on the side of the road? Wouldn't that be easier?



Err... no, it is about fairness and respect. The driver on the outside does not just swerve his car across and turn into the apex of the corner as though the inside driver is not there. Examples of the outside driver turning into the inside driver and crowding him off the track on the inside are:

Schumacher vs Hill (Australia 1994)
Schumacher vs Villeneuve (Jerez 1997)
Ocon vs Raikkonen (Baku 2018)
Max vs Ocon (Brazil 2018)

The above examples are where the outside driver should give space to the inside driver and allow him to have the apex of the corner by driving a sub-optimal, longer outside trajectory through the corner.

In return the inside driver should not force himself fully to the exit kerbing as the outside driver is likely to have a part of their car there, so the inside driver will take the inside shorter path through the corner but will have to make a more compromised, slower exit where he takes a bit longer to get on the power than the outside driver who can fully use the outside kerbing.

Each driver gives something up to the other driver and takes something from them, it's (i) good, fair racing etiquette, (ii) is fully within the rules, (iii) leads to no car contact or damage during overtaking and (iv) allows overtaking moves to be completed or not completed over multiple corners and straights in a row so we get to see longer jostles for position where we are on the edge of our seat as we observe the outcome.

That is four very solid reasons as to why the drivers need to start racing like this and respecting the outside driver's right to be in that space on the outside of the corner. The racing will benefit from it massively, but it will only start happening if the stewards start clamping down consistently on the type of behaviour we see from the drivers like what Max did in Austria.

What's your thoughts on Schumacher and Coulthard at France 2000?

Do you want an 'after you' mentality from the drivers? If so then stop watching. It's blatantly obvious when a driver purposely forces another driver wide and therefore a penalty should apply. But good, hard racing is what all of us want to see.

Adelaide 94 and Jerez 97 are ridiculous examples to use as we all know what Schumacher's intentions were. Kimi and Ocon was just a first lap tussle. Max and Ocon in Brazil was just a childish spat because Max didn't want to allow Ocon to unlap himself.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:

His steering lock is not the only thing that affects his corner exit trajectory, he was also accelerating too harshly instead of being more gingerly with the throttle pedal until both cars had exited the corner with enough space, and then he can floor it. On lap 68 he did not just shove his foot fully to the floor and accelerate at full beans out of the corner, he gave up some exit speed so as to give Leclerc space, just as Leclerc gave up some entry speed to Max in the initial phase of the corner by taking the longer outside tragectory round the corner and surrendering the apex to Max, (in both lap 68 and lap 69 Leclerc did this).

On lap 68 Max played fair, on lap 69 Max did not play fair as he wanted the quicker apex route through the corner and also wanted the outside path for the corner exit so that he could get on the gas earlier and exit the corner as fast as possible to prevent Leclerc having an opportunity to race him down the next straight into turn four. Either Leclerc would be forced to brake and drop behind Max to avoid contact at corner exit, or Leclerc could stay on the outside and accept the contact at corner exit knowing that it would push him off the track and he would come off worse that way instead. In terms of racing etiquette Leclerc was fair on both laps, Max was only fair on one of the laps.


So a driver should just driver slowly in a corner, so the other person can fit nicely next to him. Why not just stop the car and park it on the side of the road? Wouldn't that be easier?



Err... no, it is about fairness and respect. The driver on the outside does not just swerve his car across and turn into the apex of the corner as though the inside driver is not there. Examples of the outside driver turning into the inside driver and crowding him off the track on the inside are:

Schumacher vs Hill (Australia 1994)
Schumacher vs Villeneuve (Jerez 1997)
Ocon vs Raikkonen (Baku 2018)
Max vs Ocon (Brazil 2018)

The above examples are where the outside driver should give space to the inside driver and allow him to have the apex of the corner by driving a sub-optimal, longer outside trajectory through the corner.

In return the inside driver should not force himself fully to the exit kerbing as the outside driver is likely to have a part of their car there, so the inside driver will take the inside shorter path through the corner but will have to make a more compromised, slower exit where he takes a bit longer to get on the power than the outside driver who can fully use the outside kerbing.

Each driver gives something up to the other driver and takes something from them, it's (i) good, fair racing etiquette, (ii) is fully within the rules, (iii) leads to no car contact or damage during overtaking and (iv) allows overtaking moves to be completed or not completed over multiple corners and straights in a row so we get to see longer jostles for position where we are on the edge of our seat as we observe the outcome.

That is four very solid reasons as to why the drivers need to start racing like this and respecting the outside driver's right to be in that space on the outside of the corner. The racing will benefit from it massively, but it will only start happening if the stewards start clamping down consistently on the type of behaviour we see from the drivers like what Max did in Austria.

What's your thoughts on Schumacher and Coulthard at France 2000?

Do you want an 'after you' mentality from the drivers? If so then stop watching. It's blatantly obvious when a driver purposely forces another driver wide and therefore a penalty should apply. But good, hard racing is what all of us want to see.

Adelaide 94 and Jerez 97 are ridiculous examples to use as we all know what Schumacher's intentions were. Kimi and Ocon was just a first lap tussle. Max and Ocon in Brazil was just a childish spat because Max didn't want to allow Ocon to unlap himself.


Yes, but those examples are there to show that the outside driver was at fault by just trying to turn into the corner normally when they should have been making an allowance to the inside driver having a large portion of their car there on the inside.

Then in return for this allowance that the outside driver is making on corner entry, the inside driver needs to return this allowance to the outside driver on corner exit by not driving out to the exit kerbing when the outside driver is likely to have a large portion of their car there on the outside. This is what Max did on lap 68 but not lap 69 where he cheated the racing etiquette and broke the rules.

There are many other examples over the years where the outside driver just turns into the corner and chops across the inside driver other than those four I gave, but off the top of my head I could think of two recent examples from the 2018 season, but also the two old Schumacher incidents were bad for the reason that he did not give space to the inside driver, (obviously if he had given space he knew he was losing the championships, but that's irrelevant to the principles I am trying to discuss here).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
MistaVega23 wrote:
What's your thoughts on Schumacher and Coulthard at France 2000?


Just watched the youtube clip of this now as I couldn't remember it in detail.

The first attempt by Coulthard round the outside where Schumacher tries to crowd him off the track at the corner exit was wrong from Schumacher and Coulthard rightly should be upset and jesticulates at him for it.

When Coulthard does finally pass on the inside a few laps later, he gives Schumacher a car's width of space on the corner exit and therefore this move was executed perfectly. There is perhaps a very tiny amount of touching between the cars, but other than that, a superb overtake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
Another thing that I would like to add to this 'inside' and 'outside' driver concept is that I believe it is irrelevant which driver is 'attacking' and which driver is 'defending' when analysing situations such as this.

This is because the inside driver could be the attacking driver on some occasions, (when the driver ahead stays on the racing line and leaves the door open for the driver behind to attempt a pass on the inside), and equally the inside driver can also be the defending driver on other occasions when they have moved over to cover the inside line, (and forced the driver behind to move to the outside to attempt a pass on the outside).

So essentially once each driver is positioned as the 'inside' driver and the 'outside' driver at corner commencement, it is irrelevant to me how they got there, they are both in my mind obligated to be conducting proper racing etiquette towards each other regardless of whether they are the driver that is 'attacking' or 'defending'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1875
F1 Racer wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:

His steering lock is not the only thing that affects his corner exit trajectory, he was also accelerating too harshly instead of being more gingerly with the throttle pedal until both cars had exited the corner with enough space, and then he can floor it. On lap 68 he did not just shove his foot fully to the floor and accelerate at full beans out of the corner, he gave up some exit speed so as to give Leclerc space, just as Leclerc gave up some entry speed to Max in the initial phase of the corner by taking the longer outside tragectory round the corner and surrendering the apex to Max, (in both lap 68 and lap 69 Leclerc did this).

On lap 68 Max played fair, on lap 69 Max did not play fair as he wanted the quicker apex route through the corner and also wanted the outside path for the corner exit so that he could get on the gas earlier and exit the corner as fast as possible to prevent Leclerc having an opportunity to race him down the next straight into turn four. Either Leclerc would be forced to brake and drop behind Max to avoid contact at corner exit, or Leclerc could stay on the outside and accept the contact at corner exit knowing that it would push him off the track and he would come off worse that way instead. In terms of racing etiquette Leclerc was fair on both laps, Max was only fair on one of the laps.


So a driver should just driver slowly in a corner, so the other person can fit nicely next to him. Why not just stop the car and park it on the side of the road? Wouldn't that be easier?



Err... no, it is about fairness and respect. The driver on the outside does not just swerve his car across and turn into the apex of the corner as though the inside driver is not there. Examples of the outside driver turning into the inside driver and crowding him off the track on the inside are:

Schumacher vs Hill (Australia 1994)
Schumacher vs Villeneuve (Jerez 1997)
Ocon vs Raikkonen (Baku 2018)
Max vs Ocon (Brazil 2018)

The above examples are where the outside driver should give space to the inside driver and allow him to have the apex of the corner by driving a sub-optimal, longer outside trajectory through the corner.

In return the inside driver should not force himself fully to the exit kerbing as the outside driver is likely to have a part of their car there, so the inside driver will take the inside shorter path through the corner but will have to make a more compromised, slower exit where he takes a bit longer to get on the power than the outside driver who can fully use the outside kerbing.

Each driver gives something up to the other driver and takes something from them, it's (i) good, fair racing etiquette, (ii) is fully within the rules, (iii) leads to no car contact or damage during overtaking and (iv) allows overtaking moves to be completed or not completed over multiple corners and straights in a row so we get to see longer jostles for position where we are on the edge of our seat as we observe the outcome.

That is four very solid reasons as to why the drivers need to start racing like this and respecting the outside driver's right to be in that space on the outside of the corner. The racing will benefit from it massively, but it will only start happening if the stewards start clamping down consistently on the type of behaviour we see from the drivers like what Max did in Austria.


So by your rationale there can never be any overtake. We should just award point on Saturday and just do away with Sundays.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
ReservoirDog wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:

His steering lock is not the only thing that affects his corner exit trajectory, he was also accelerating too harshly instead of being more gingerly with the throttle pedal until both cars had exited the corner with enough space, and then he can floor it. On lap 68 he did not just shove his foot fully to the floor and accelerate at full beans out of the corner, he gave up some exit speed so as to give Leclerc space, just as Leclerc gave up some entry speed to Max in the initial phase of the corner by taking the longer outside tragectory round the corner and surrendering the apex to Max, (in both lap 68 and lap 69 Leclerc did this).

On lap 68 Max played fair, on lap 69 Max did not play fair as he wanted the quicker apex route through the corner and also wanted the outside path for the corner exit so that he could get on the gas earlier and exit the corner as fast as possible to prevent Leclerc having an opportunity to race him down the next straight into turn four. Either Leclerc would be forced to brake and drop behind Max to avoid contact at corner exit, or Leclerc could stay on the outside and accept the contact at corner exit knowing that it would push him off the track and he would come off worse that way instead. In terms of racing etiquette Leclerc was fair on both laps, Max was only fair on one of the laps.


So a driver should just driver slowly in a corner, so the other person can fit nicely next to him. Why not just stop the car and park it on the side of the road? Wouldn't that be easier?



Err... no, it is about fairness and respect. The driver on the outside does not just swerve his car across and turn into the apex of the corner as though the inside driver is not there. Examples of the outside driver turning into the inside driver and crowding him off the track on the inside are:

Schumacher vs Hill (Australia 1994)
Schumacher vs Villeneuve (Jerez 1997)
Ocon vs Raikkonen (Baku 2018)
Max vs Ocon (Brazil 2018)

The above examples are where the outside driver should give space to the inside driver and allow him to have the apex of the corner by driving a sub-optimal, longer outside trajectory through the corner.

In return the inside driver should not force himself fully to the exit kerbing as the outside driver is likely to have a part of their car there, so the inside driver will take the inside shorter path through the corner but will have to make a more compromised, slower exit where he takes a bit longer to get on the power than the outside driver who can fully use the outside kerbing.

Each driver gives something up to the other driver and takes something from them, it's (i) good, fair racing etiquette, (ii) is fully within the rules, (iii) leads to no car contact or damage during overtaking and (iv) allows overtaking moves to be completed or not completed over multiple corners and straights in a row so we get to see longer jostles for position where we are on the edge of our seat as we observe the outcome.

That is four very solid reasons as to why the drivers need to start racing like this and respecting the outside driver's right to be in that space on the outside of the corner. The racing will benefit from it massively, but it will only start happening if the stewards start clamping down consistently on the type of behaviour we see from the drivers like what Max did in Austria.


So by your rationale there can never be any overtake. We should just award point on Saturday and just do away with Sundays.


Wow.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 702
If you don't have the previous lap then how do you prove that Max's action was deliberate? Even with that, apparently both drivers took more speed into the corner the second time round, which would result in taking more of the track on exit, so again how do you prove that the crowding was deliberate? It is a racing incident, as it would certainly be on lap 1 so all the drivers are naturally going to give more room at the start because everyone knows you can only lose a race on lap 1.

Let's say the fia did give consideration of penalizing the inside driver in these incidents? How then do you decide what is fair. Can the driver leave half a cars width so that the outside driver can keep two wheels inside the white line? How about quarter of a car width? Is The acceptable space different for different corners on different tracks?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
WHoff78 wrote:
If you don't have the previous lap then how do you prove that Max's action was deliberate? Even with that, apparently both drivers took more speed into the corner the second time round, which would result in taking more of the track on exit, so again how do you prove that the crowding was deliberate? It is a racing incident, as it would certainly be on lap 1 so all the drivers are naturally going to give more room at the start because everyone knows you can only lose a race on lap 1.


You know it's deliberate because there are about two seconds worth of time between the apex and arriving at the outside kerbing at this particular corner. Not only could Max easily leave space on lap 68, but Norris could on lap 1 with Hamilton. The driver just makes a quick and conscious decision of ''I am the inside driver here with my competitor on the outside and there is likely to be part of my competitor's car between me and the outside kerbing at the corner exit, so I can not just accelerate out of this corner with full beans like I normally would, instead I will exit the corner with a moderate amount of acceleration intensity with at least one car width between me and the edge of the track at all times until my car has straightened up and is parallel to the edge of the track, and only then will I floor the throttle pedal with maximum intensity''.

Hamilton was able to leave space on the outside to Bottas in Baku 2019 on lap 1, in a smaller corner than turn three in Austria, as did Coulthard in France 2000, and Schumacher deliberately did not do in France 2000 and Imola 2004 that were mentioned above. Leaving space is easily done, these are skilled drivers and they know how to operate their cars and can decide at corner entry if they are going to use the full width of the track or not for this particular corner on this particular lap.

WHoff78 wrote:

Let's say the fia did give consideration of penalizing the inside driver in these incidents? How then do you decide what is fair. Can the driver leave half a cars width so that the outside driver can keep two wheels inside the white line? How about quarter of a car width? Is The acceptable space different for different corners on different tracks?




The acceptable width would be one car width or just over a car width to be safe. Bascially don't touch the other car on your outside, it's simple. You can lean slightly on the other driver by all means if you think your rival will move slightly further outwards in response, but once your rival is starting to run out of road, you can lean on him no longer and must leave him room to navigate the corner alongside you still. Basically drive in a way where it is still possible for both you and your competitor to have space to drive through the corner side-by-side, it's really that simple. There is no need to be moving laterally into another car; they did not move laterally into you at the corner entry and apex portion of the corner, so do not move laterally into them at the corner exit; instead give them space to be able to drive through the corner too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7336
Location: Michigan, USA
F1 Racer wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
If you don't have the previous lap then how do you prove that Max's action was deliberate? Even with that, apparently both drivers took more speed into the corner the second time round, which would result in taking more of the track on exit, so again how do you prove that the crowding was deliberate? It is a racing incident, as it would certainly be on lap 1 so all the drivers are naturally going to give more room at the start because everyone knows you can only lose a race on lap 1.

You know it's deliberate because there are about two seconds worth of time between the apex and arriving at the outside kerbing at this particular corner. Not only could Max easily leave space on lap 68, but Norris could on lap 1 with Hamilton. The driver just makes a quick and conscious decision of ''I am the inside driver here with my competitor on the outside and there is likely to be part of my competitor's car between me and the outside kerbing at the corner exit, so I can not just accelerate out of this corner with full beans like I normally would, instead I will exit the corner with a moderate amount of acceleration intensity with at least one car width between me and the edge of the track at all times until my car has straightened up and is parallel to the edge of the track, and only then will I floor the throttle pedal with maximum intensity''.

Hamilton was able to leave space on the outside to Bottas in Baku 2019 on lap 1, in a smaller corner than turn three in Austria, as did Coulthard in France 2000, and Schumacher deliberately did not do in France 2000 and Imola 2004 that were mentioned above. Leaving space is easily done, these are skilled drivers and they know how to operate their cars and can decide at corner entry if they are going to use the full width of the track or not for this particular corner on this particular lap.

Yeah, I don't buy for a second that Max couldn't have left more room. He chose not to.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 702
Even it it were that simple though, which most don't agree with by the way (including the stewards - that's a separate point anyway), it becomes so grey so quickly. Many times when this occurs the driver won't accelerate until they hit the apex, they will still be decelerating and right on the racing line. I have no doubt that Max's line was very deliberate in this instance, but the thing is most of the time you can't prove it, and I'm fairly confident that's why the stewards determined it was a racing incident. And they have a little more data than you so sure you'll understand me siding with them. As for giving enough space, I think you probably understand the point I am making and the rules don't ever require leaving a full width because as long as a car is not all wheels over the white line they are good. If it did then how do the stewards begin to ascertain who is in the wrong when it is right on the limit of a cars width but a few inches either way. Bottom line I don't disagree that it was deliberate, but proving that is something entirely different and something the stewards felt there was insufficient evidence to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 702
Also you say he moves laterally - he does but always towards the apex and away from LeClerc. Just the track turns tighter. Part of the reason it is so hard to proove intent. Anyway, it is what it is. Was a great race and I think most agree the correct result even if we would have preferred a win for Charles. Onwards to silverstone. Good luck convincing others!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
WHoff78 wrote:
Even it it were that simple though, which most don't agree with by the way (including the stewards - that's a separate point anyway), it becomes so grey so quickly. Many times when this occurs the driver won't accelerate until they hit the apex, they will still be decelerating and right on the racing line. I have no doubt that Max's line was very deliberate in this instance, but the thing is most of the time you can't prove it, and I'm fairly confident that's why the stewards determined it was a racing incident. And they have a little more data than you so sure you'll understand me siding with them. As for giving enough space, I think you probably understand the point I am making and the rules don't ever require leaving a full width because as long as a car is not all wheels over the white line they are good. If it did then how do the stewards begin to ascertain who is in the wrong when it is right on the limit of a cars width but a few inches either way. Bottom line I don't disagree that it was deliberate, but proving that is something entirely different and something the stewards felt there was insufficient evidence to do.


It is that simple, it is possible to leave space on the outside of any corner in F1. Normally a driver going through a corner on his own will start to accelerate at 100% intensity when he is past the apex of the corner, although depending on how tight the corner is he may not be applying 100% intensity immediately after the apex. If he want's to leave more than a car width's space around the outside of himself, (essentially the equivalent as him redrawing in his mind's eye the white outer line of paint one car width inwards so that the corner is now tighter than it usually is), then he just accelerates out of the corner less harshly than normal, even lifting off the accelerator pedal completely for a short period of time if the corner is really tight, (someone going around the outside of him at the Loews/Grand Hotel hairpin in Monaco for instance). Any corner on the calendar it is possible to exit the corner staying well away from the exit kerbs so leaving a car width of space to the kerbs is not difficult for these professional drivers to do.

Any driver that drives to the outside kerbing and by doing so comes into contact with another car on his outside, is automatically guilty of not driving with enough care and attention and crowding a car off the circuit. It's pretty simple to police, with really marginal situations with very slight overlap such as Hamilton vs Rosberg in Belgium 2014 being seen as racing incidents, and anything more than a marginal overlap holding the inside driver at fault for attempting to crowd the outside driver off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
WHoff78 wrote:
Also you say he moves laterally - he does but always towards the apex and away from LeClerc. Just the track turns tighter. Part of the reason it is so hard to proove intent. Anyway, it is what it is. Was a great race and I think most agree the correct result even if we would have preferred a win for Charles. Onwards to silverstone. Good luck convincing others!


No, on lap 69 he is moving completely towards the left, outside edge of the track. He is nowhere near the right inside edge of the track on corner exit, so of course he is moving laterally towards the left. He starts the corner entry close to the right edge of the track and ends the corner touching the left edge, so it is pretty clear to see what direction his lateral movement is: from right to left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 702
No, looked again, he is always turning to the right. Rosberg did something similar to what you described a few years back and was penalized though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
WHoff78 wrote:
No, looked again, he is always turning to the right. Rosberg did something similar to what you described a few years back and was penalized though.


Urgh, it doesn't matter what his steering direction is. If he is accelerating too harshly then his car will be moving towards the left side of the track even if he is steering right...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 702
You can say urgh all you want but that is where we fundamentally disagree. As I mentioned before if they took your interpretation then i believe it would completely change racing and how the top drivers approach overtaking. I would actually love to see how it played out but I think there would be outcry by many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
WHoff78 wrote:
You can say urgh all you want but that is where we fundamentally disagree. As I mentioned before if they took your interpretation then i believe it would completely change racing and how the top drivers approach overtaking. I would actually love to see how it played out but I think there would be outcry by many.


How are we disagreeing though? He moves from the right side of the track to the left, this is a fact and not up for debate or disagreement.

No one in this thread thinks that the stewards have consistently punished this in the past, they have very sparingly punished it usually when it is combined with a recent track rejoin by the perpetrator, (Schumacher vs Frentzen in Canada 1998 is another where Schumacher was penalised for forcing Frentzen off after rejoining from a pitstop), but other than that they allow the inside driver to push the outside driver off whenever they want to, despite the rules clearly saying that this is not allowed and the stewards clearly never having read all of the rules and thought about what each of them means, (this is the only explanation I have for their lack of application of a clearly written rule).

Now certain rules such as unsafe pitstop releases are fairly well defined in the rules and well policed by the stewards, (they have established solid rules of thumb for what are and aren't unsafe releases and apply this rationale consistently), but unfortunately not 100% of the rules are correctly policed by the stewards, and this crowding off the track rule is probably the biggest rule that doesn't get correctly applied to the racing, very likely because they just don't understand it and how to police it, (and in this thread I have suggested ways that it can be easily policed and indeed the four benefits that it would bring to the racing if it were policed correctly).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 702
It's not just the acceleration though. Any momentum will take him to the outside of the corner eventually, which is quite different to left or right, but that is a consequence and that is where for me it becomes almost impossible to prove that it is deliberate. Steering inputs, less so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
WHoff78 wrote:
It's not just the acceleration though. Any momentum will take him to the outside of the corner eventually, which is quite different to left or right, but that is a consequence and that is where for me it becomes almost impossible to prove that it is deliberate. Steering inputs, less so.


It is possible for him to arrive at the corner exit but still be far away from the left side edge of the track, as he showed on lap 68, and he could have lifted off the accelerator even more than what he did on lap 68 and given even more than one car width of space to his opponent, (he would have no need to do this, I am just pointing out that a driver barely applying any acceleration will be exiting the corner in the middle of the track, far from the left side edge, so there is a fair margin of error for the inside driver to play with so he knows fully well when he is trying to send his car completely over to the left outside edge and forcing his rival off).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:30 am
Posts: 3
This isn't about going as cleanly, with as many cars possible, through a corner. This is about winning a race!

Of course Max didn't choose the same path as in lap 68. That didn't work, so he chose a different approach.
The main question is, according to the rules, if the crowding off was deliberately or not. The path he chose was deliberately, but was his intention to crowd off Leclerc with that? I believe that is what the stewards could not prove, and they have more evidence available than us viewers.

I have seen a number of post-race shows with (former) drivers and also read press reactions from over the world (including from France and Italy) and they all were positive about the race. From that side I have seen no one say that Max stole this win.


Last edited by Fritzie on Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1907
F1 Racer wrote:
Any driver that drives to the outside kerbing and by doing so comes into contact with another car on his outside, is automatically guilty of not driving with enough care and attention and crowding a car off the circuit.

No they're not.

This is my argument about both drivers having equal responsibility. Unless it's blatantly obvious that one driver has forced the other off-track then it should simply be classed as hard racing. The driver on the outside either keeps his foot in - in which case running the risk of contact with the other car - or hangs back hoping for the switchback.

The driver on the inside has braked later and has a narrower apex angle, so natural momentum will take him further out to the edge of the corner. It's not that difficult to comprehend.

By your rationale any driver who attempts an overtake is possibly going to get a penalty due to the laws of physics, without any consideration for the actions of the driver being overtaken.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10280
Location: Ireland
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Nice try to shift the goals, but the onus is not on me to find you an incident to prove why this overtake was on the naughty side.

It seems that you have the opinion that a rule needs to be validated somehow by a decision. Not really, the rule is there, if the stewards didn't enforce it correctly then it is not the rule that is wrong, it is the stewards that need to enforce it. Leclrec was at the apex side by side with Max and was crowded out of the track. This much is clear.

Wrong. The onus is on you and/or F1 Racer to show us how and why this incident is:
F1 Racer wrote:
never acceptable then and it's still not acceptable now

Someone back this statement up. Otherwise anyone on this side of the fence is talking out their hole

First my argument was that the rule is not really being applied and this is a mistake; you asked me to find an incident where the rule was applied...

Now you want me to back a statement that I didn't make...

I think you are getting a bit frustrated here, you need to cool down.

The reality is that Max crowded a car that was alongside him as the rules describe it. That's not talking out of anyone's hole

No no - you were calling me out for informing F1 Racer that the sport doesn't agree with his opinion. Whereas it's true - the people enforcing the rules in Formula 1 do not agree with F1 Racer's claim that Max's move is not acceptable

Then you went on about me making "blanket statements". Whereas I'm being very precise - the people enforcing the rules in Formula 1 do not agree with F1 Racer's claim that Max's move is not acceptable

And you're not able to show me a shred of evidence to counter it

If you think that the three stewards speak for the whole sport then that's good for you. I just disagreed with that. The stewards time and again have been called for not being consistent, Steiner, Horner, Salo, Kvyat, etc. Just do a search for that and you'll see how many F1 bosses and drivers have spoken about it. Hell, Brawn came out this year and said that the stewards need to give better explanations for their decisions, give more insight. Everything points to the rules not being enforced evenly (not that it is easy). This is why Stewart called in the past for full-time stewards, to avoid inconsistent calls.

The stewards can and do get it wrong.

Different conversation. The inconsistency of stewards has been called into question across the whole spectrum of issues as long as penalties have been dished out in F1. However, when it comes to this exact type of move they have been proven to be consistent going back a number of years now

Changing the conversation from discussing this exact type of move and why it should/shouldn't get penalised to a wider conversation about stewarding inconsistency in general - now that's shifting goalposts

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7715
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Any driver that drives to the outside kerbing and by doing so comes into contact with another car on his outside, is automatically guilty of not driving with enough care and attention and crowding a car off the circuit.

No they're not.

This is my argument about both drivers having equal responsibility. Unless it's blatantly obvious that one driver has forced the other off-track then it should simply be classed as hard racing. The driver on the outside either keeps his foot in - in which case running the risk of contact with the other car - or hangs back hoping for the switchback.

The driver on the inside has braked later and has a narrower apex angle, so natural momentum will take him further out to the edge of the corner. It's not that difficult to comprehend.

By your rationale any driver who attempts an overtake is possibly going to get a penalty due to the laws of physics, without any consideration for the actions of the driver being overtaken.

It is very simple, there's no "after you sir" mentality, nor "stop the car and park it on the side of the road". When on the apex the two cars are side by side, both drivers have claimed the corner, they can both go around it safely, there's certainly enough space and it's been done before. If the guy being overtaken is clearly behind before the apex, then he should back off as he is running out of space very fast.

What you certainly cannot do as per the regs is to crowd someone off the track. Why is it so difficult to comprehend?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10280
Location: Ireland
Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Masi has said incidents from over 3 years ago are not relevant.
I read this too, but I wondered why he made that statement. I don't recall the rule on crowding a competitor off the track was changed around that time.

The rule hasn't changed but the interpretation of the rule pretty much has. Masi may as well put a time limit on it and save himself the hassle of having people bringing every incident going back years and years to his attention

Plus he might want to put his own stamp on the job. Charlie had his way of doing things, Masi might have his own way of doing things. In a couple of years the stewards may never again reference any incident under Charlie's watch

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


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: AravJ 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