planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:45 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: Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
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.



But the guy on the outside has already played fair by not crowding the inside driver up the insider kerbs as he intially tries to pass him. So imagine Max vs Ocon in Brazil 2018, if Max plays fair to Ocon by not chopping straight across Ocon's nose into the right hander of turn two and instead taking a wider, slower non-apex path through the corner, then Ocon needs to return the favour by not crowding Max off the outside kerbing of the right hander of turn two.

Then they will likely be going round the long left hander still side-by-side, with Max having the shorter racing line path and Ocon going on the non-racing line longer path towards the back straight. Ocon doesn't chop left into Max and barge him off so that Ocon can now grab the racing line and in return once they enter the back straight, if Ocon still has part of his car overlapping with Max then Max again shouldn't completely crowd Ocon off over the outside kerbs on the right.

MistaVega23 wrote:

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.


I think what you are referring to there is a Danny Ric style dive-bomb which again people on here have been very critical of in the past because it's very much a 'get out of the way or we crash' style of overtake where the racing etiquette is not quite right with it and there is an air of desperation about the move. He is trying to grab the apex of the corner from a position that is very far back, and in some cases his momentum as a result of his ridiculously late braking means he ends up still flying across the track at speed towards the exit kerbs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:35 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Perth, Western Australia
This still going? :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
I think it was mentioned earlier but Magnussen was penalised in Hungary 2017 for crowding Hulkenberg off the edge of the track and from watching the replay of it there really is no significant difference from this and the Austria 2019 incident. Maybe Magnussen strays more from the racing line to crowd Hulkenberg off perhaps, but drivers aren't obligated to stick to the racing line at any given time and clearly with this incident it was deemed unacceptable for Hulkenberg to be put off the circuit like this, so why wasn't it unacceptable for Leclerc to be put off the circuit on lap 69 in a similar fashion when it was shown possible for him to not be put off the circuit on lap 68?

And there's no doubt that Verstappen gains an advantage from putting Leclerc off, it's not like this pushing him off the track was inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, it was a necessary part of him being able to force his way by. Isn't the definition of a clean, fair overtake one that is with no contact, no weaving and neither driver needing to leave the track at any point?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
And yet more precedent for crowding another driver off the course, Rosberg vs Verstappen at Germany 2016. This again being very similar to Austria 2019 but it was penalised with a 5 second penalty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAQ3AhTeE

It's funny hearing Max protesting ''He pushed me off the track'' during his defensive outside path of Rosberg's inside overtake, and he know's it was wrong for this to happen to him, hence Rosberg's penalty; yet less than three years later here he is committing the same offence on another driver and expecting to get away with it as it's ''hard and fair racing and either he is allowed to do that or he stays at home''. Double standards for sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1907
F1 Racer wrote:
I think what you are referring to there is a Danny Ric style dive-bomb which again people on here have been very critical of in the past because it's very much a 'get out of the way or we crash' style of overtake where the racing etiquette is not quite right with it and there is an air of desperation about the move. He is trying to grab the apex of the corner from a position that is very far back, and in some cases his momentum as a result of his ridiculously late braking means he ends up still flying across the track at speed towards the exit kerbs.

So the collision between Vettel and Hamilton in Monza last year was Lewis' fault because he didn't give the Ferrari enough space? Why wasn't a penalty applied then? Or a penalty for Lewis at Spa 2014 when he 'crowded' Rosberg around Les Combes?

Your points, thoughtful as they are, just don't make any sense. Simply expecting both drivers to negotiate a corner calmly and orderly when you're fighting for the lead with two laps to go is just a pipedream. Either we have overtaking or we don't. Given the lack of on-track action we've had in recent years, a move like Verstappen's on Sunday is just what F1 fans need. I agree that the move was risky, but it came off.

As I've said previously, the floodgates are now open for the driver on the outside to simply keep his foot in, stick his car as close to the outside of the overtaking driver as possible, and then cry out for a penalty when there's slight contact. Even though they're equally at fault for placing their car in a risky position in the first place.

Siao7 wrote:
What you certainly cannot do as per the regs is to crowd someone off the track. Why is it so difficult to comprehend?

I completely agree with the crowding (and always have), but I've said all along that Leclerc was as much to blame for the contact as Verstappen. He chose to put his car there, and Max's narrower trajectory took him to the outside of the track, leaving Charles with nowhere to go. That to me is not deliberate crowding when you compare it to incidents in the past. Rosberg on Hamilton in 2016 was blatant. This was not.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1907
F1 Racer wrote:
And yet more precedent for crowding another driver off the course, Rosberg vs Verstappen at Germany 2016. This again being very similar to Austria 2019 but it was penalised with a 5 second penalty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAQ3AhTeE

It's funny hearing Max protesting ''He pushed me off the track'' during his defensive outside path of Rosberg's inside overtake, and he know's it was wrong for this to happen to him, hence Rosberg's penalty; yet less than three years later here he is committing the same offence on another driver and expecting to get away with it as it's ''hard and fair racing and either he is allowed to do that or he stays at home''. Double standards for sure.

That was 100% Rosberg. Check his on-board and how late he turned in, that was a carbon copy of what he did to Lewis in Austria.

You cannot compare the two.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:59 pm 
Offline

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

Your points, thoughtful as they are, just don't make any sense. Simply expecting both drivers to negotiate a corner calmly and orderly when you're fighting for the lead with two laps to go is just a pipedream.



But expecting two drivers to negotiate a corner calmly and orderly when they are fighting for the lead with three laps to go is not a pipedream, (as they demonstrated they could do this on lap 68?) What's so special about only two laps to go that makes this expectation now suddenly a pipedream?

MistaVega23 wrote:
Either we have overtaking or we don't. Given the lack of on-track action we've had in recent years, a move like Verstappen's on Sunday is just what F1 fans need. I agree that the move was risky, but it came off.


But Austria 2019 was exciting enough already before the lap 69 incident, it was full of brilliant racing many overtaking moves and no contact, so to add the lap 69 shoving off the track of another driver was not needed at all. In fact if lap 69, 70 and 71 had some great jostling for the lead like lap 68 proved could happen, it would probably have been one of the greatest F1 races of all time. Leclerc being bumped off the track to decide the winner of the race was so unnecessary and left a bitter taste in the mouth and took some of the shine off of Max's otherwise outstanding drive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
And yet more precedent for crowding another driver off the course, Rosberg vs Verstappen at Germany 2016. This again being very similar to Austria 2019 but it was penalised with a 5 second penalty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAQ3AhTeE

It's funny hearing Max protesting ''He pushed me off the track'' during his defensive outside path of Rosberg's inside overtake, and he know's it was wrong for this to happen to him, hence Rosberg's penalty; yet less than three years later here he is committing the same offence on another driver and expecting to get away with it as it's ''hard and fair racing and either he is allowed to do that or he stays at home''. Double standards for sure.

That was 100% Rosberg. Check his on-board and how late he turned in, that was a carbon copy of what he did to Lewis in Austria.

You cannot compare the two.


But he got the penalty for forcing another driver off, it doesn't really matter how he did it, just that he did do it. Your response is straw clutching in the extreme.

There is nothing in the rules that says:

''You cannot crowd another driver off the track by braking too late and forcing the outside driver off with your out of control corner momentum. However you are allowed to crowd another driver off the track if you brake in good time for the corner and instead only force the outside driver off by accelerating your car completely to the outside edge of the track later on round the corner.''

It is simply stated that crowding another driver off the track is strictly prohibited.

If anything the 'braking too late' method of forcing a driver off has more mitigations attached to it, than the 'careful and planned acceleration towards the outside kerbing' method of forcing a driver off has. This is because it's easier to misjudge your braking point by a few metres than it is to not see how much your acceleration is gradually taking you closer and closer to the outside white line with a competitor's car still between you and the white line. The late braking may occur due to a fraction of a second misjudgement, but the slower crowding out via the 'too much acceleration' method can be judged over a second or two depending on the corner and a lifting off of the throttle can be made to correct your trajectory if you realise you are squeezing too much.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7715
MistaVega23 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What you certainly cannot do as per the regs is to crowd someone off the track. Why is it so difficult to comprehend?

I completely agree with the crowding (and always have), but I've said all along that Leclerc was as much to blame for the contact as Verstappen. He chose to put his car there, and Max's narrower trajectory took him to the outside of the track, leaving Charles with nowhere to go. That to me is not deliberate crowding when you compare it to incidents in the past. Rosberg on Hamilton in 2016 was blatant. This was not.


Apologies I've quoted the relevant part only and not your whole post.

This sounds very much like a divebomb, where a driver brakes late on a narrower trajectory, overshoots the turn and expects the defending car to slam on the brakes or simply vanish from the track. Leclerc did nothing wrong, even took a wider than normal line to accommodate Max. Going faster in the tighter line gives you a trajectory that is not optimal and carries the potential to overshoot the corner. Why is this on Max's defense? Max took this line, at which point it becomes his responsibility to complete a full overtake without taking another car outside the track? Remember that he hadn't cleared Leclerc yet at the apex.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7715
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
And yet more precedent for crowding another driver off the course, Rosberg vs Verstappen at Germany 2016. This again being very similar to Austria 2019 but it was penalised with a 5 second penalty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAQ3AhTeE

It's funny hearing Max protesting ''He pushed me off the track'' during his defensive outside path of Rosberg's inside overtake, and he know's it was wrong for this to happen to him, hence Rosberg's penalty; yet less than three years later here he is committing the same offence on another driver and expecting to get away with it as it's ''hard and fair racing and either he is allowed to do that or he stays at home''. Double standards for sure.

That was 100% Rosberg. Check his on-board and how late he turned in, that was a carbon copy of what he did to Lewis in Austria.

You cannot compare the two.

The ruling was that he forced another driver off the track. 5 sec penalty and another reminder that this is a punishable offence


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 702
Actually the rules simply state that is has to be 'Deliberate'. That word is quite important. Rosbergs actions are very deliberate in that move and imagine that the telemetry is fairly damming. There is no attempt to turn in to the corner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
WHoff78 wrote:
Actually the rules simply state that is has to be 'Deliberate'. That word is quite important. Rosbergs actions are very deliberate in that move and imagine that the telemetry is fairly damming. There is no attempt to turn in to the corner.


As were Max's actions deliberate in Austria 2019, he knew exactly what he was doing and was easily capable of going through that corner without forcing Leclerc off the track as he demonstrated on the previous lap.

Again, Rosberg was correctly punished and this is not an issue, this is just showing that there is precedent for penalising this kind of thing and that Max's version of crowding a competitor off had more premeditation in it and was more easily avoided than the Rosberg one. I don't think Rosberg meant to force Verstappen off, he just braked too late to a point where crowding Max off became unfortunate and inevitable; however he still deserves the penalty because he was a bit careless with his driving and Max doesn't deserve to lose the place in this way.

Leclerc being crowded off however was in no way inevitable and was completely avoidable, only Max chose not to avoid this outcome, hence he is even more deserving of a penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2222
Location: Miami, Florida
Image
The issue is the rule and how it’s only enforced on approach to the corner, never considering that once the car takes the position, the car overtaken is now in the position to be given the same car’s width to the edge of the track.

And please spare us the argument that it’s all one move, because clearly it isn’t, and just as one driver expected to adhere to the rules, so too should the other driver. These guys are professionals who can do insane things with cars and maintain perfect control so controlling outward drift is literally a synch for them.

Also, bear in mind that drivers purposely take turns wider than they can in order to maximize speed, but can take them tighter if they wish.

There are many reasons why this incident could have and should have been penalized and the biggest reason it wasn’t was primarily because of all the talk after the penalty in Canada drew negative reactions from a great deal of people, most of whom don’t know much about the sport to begin with, which is just sad.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Image
The issue is the rule and how it’s only enforced on approach to the corner, never considering that once the car takes the position, the car overtaken is now in the position to be given the same car’s width to the edge of the track.

And please spare us the argument that it’s all one move, because clearly it isn’t, and just as one driver expected to adhere to the rules, so too should the other driver. These guys are professionals who can do insane things with cars and maintain perfect control so controlling outward drift is literally a synch for them.

Also, bear in mind that drivers purposely take turns wider than they can in order to maximize speed, but can take them tighter if they wish.

There are many reasons why this incident could have and should have been penalized and the biggest reason it wasn’t was primarily because of all the talk after the penalty in Canada drew negative reactions from a great deal of people, most of whom don’t know much about the sport to begin with, which is just sad.


Spot on!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 460
How dare a driver actually make a RACING move in F1?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
mmi16 wrote:
How dare a driver actually make a RACING move in F1?


Isn't Leclerc about to make a 'racing' move back on Verstappen to attempt to repass him for the lead on the run down to turn four, just like he did on the lap prior?

But then oh no, someone bumps him off the track and he is prevented from giving us the racing move that we want to see him attempt.

There seems to be a real lack of looking at this incident from Leclerc's point of view, it's absolutely staggering. Leclerc was going for the lead of the grand prix, about to attempt a clean move on the race leader with only two laps left to go, and someone prevents him from doing so with a dirty tactic. I thought we all wanted to see great racing, yet many are applauding that Leclerc was prevented from going for the win.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2222
Location: Miami, Florida
mmi16 wrote:
How dare a driver actually make a RACING move in F1?

The level of sheer ignorance is astonishing.

But since it seems you missed all my other posts in her (as well as those of countless others) I praised Max’s drive vehemently because it was an incredible performance. HOWEVER his “pass” on Leclerc was not in line with the rest of his day. Had he gotten past cleanly, it would rank close to the top of my list of best drives ever, because that’s how good the rest of his performance was.

So you can insist on your desire to find no fault in that move, but all you have to do to understand what some of us are saying is correct, is to compare that move to everything else he did on the day. You should notice a notable difference.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4796
Even if I am siding here with Verstappen, it looks like that he profited from the harsh penalty given to Vettel.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2222
Location: Miami, Florida
That’s in addition to the foul committed which makes the situation worse.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1907
Siao7 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
And yet more precedent for crowding another driver off the course, Rosberg vs Verstappen at Germany 2016. This again being very similar to Austria 2019 but it was penalised with a 5 second penalty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAQ3AhTeE

It's funny hearing Max protesting ''He pushed me off the track'' during his defensive outside path of Rosberg's inside overtake, and he know's it was wrong for this to happen to him, hence Rosberg's penalty; yet less than three years later here he is committing the same offence on another driver and expecting to get away with it as it's ''hard and fair racing and either he is allowed to do that or he stays at home''. Double standards for sure.

That was 100% Rosberg. Check his on-board and how late he turned in, that was a carbon copy of what he did to Lewis in Austria.

You cannot compare the two.

The ruling was that he forced another driver off the track. 5 sec penalty and another reminder that this is a punishable offence

Having watched numerous replays (of last weekend and several others in the past - not all involving Max!) I'm now beginning to shift my position on whether it was deserving of a penalty.

There WAS the opportunity for him moving closer to the apex (he only starts to turn in once he's shifted down to second gear - maybe he didn't want to risk spinning the rears?) but he definitely delays the turn-in so as to move Charles closer to the outside of turn 3, not wanting to repeat the previous lap.

I would like to see his telemetry on throttle input once he knew Charles was alongside, but all in all I'd now agree that it ventures into the 'crowding' category regardless of my previous comments on Leclerc being equally responsible (I still believe he should have hung back and gone for the switchback with DRS, but there we go).

Maybe my racing emotions got the better of me in the days after the race, but I know accept that it was a risky move and perhaps deserving of a penalty.

Great debate, though 8)

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7715
MistaVega23 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
And yet more precedent for crowding another driver off the course, Rosberg vs Verstappen at Germany 2016. This again being very similar to Austria 2019 but it was penalised with a 5 second penalty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAQ3AhTeE

It's funny hearing Max protesting ''He pushed me off the track'' during his defensive outside path of Rosberg's inside overtake, and he know's it was wrong for this to happen to him, hence Rosberg's penalty; yet less than three years later here he is committing the same offence on another driver and expecting to get away with it as it's ''hard and fair racing and either he is allowed to do that or he stays at home''. Double standards for sure.

That was 100% Rosberg. Check his on-board and how late he turned in, that was a carbon copy of what he did to Lewis in Austria.

You cannot compare the two.

The ruling was that he forced another driver off the track. 5 sec penalty and another reminder that this is a punishable offence

Having watched numerous replays (of last weekend and several others in the past - not all involving Max!) I'm now beginning to shift my position on whether it was deserving of a penalty.

There WAS the opportunity for him moving closer to the apex (he only starts to turn in once he's shifted down to second gear - maybe he didn't want to risk spinning the rears?) but he definitely delays the turn-in so as to move Charles closer to the outside of turn 3, not wanting to repeat the previous lap.

I would like to see his telemetry on throttle input once he knew Charles was alongside, but all in all I'd now agree that it ventures into the 'crowding' category regardless of my previous comments on Leclerc being equally responsible (I still believe he should have hung back and gone for the switchback with DRS, but there we go).

Maybe my racing emotions got the better of me in the days after the race, but I know accept that it was a risky move and perhaps deserving of a penalty.

Great debate, though 8)

That's absolutely fine and in my mind commendable, not many people change their minds about something.

I would still want to know why it took them 3 hours to deliberate this issue when it took them only 15' or so to penalize Vettel, but I don't think we'll ever find out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 106
Siao7 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
And yet more precedent for crowding another driver off the course, Rosberg vs Verstappen at Germany 2016. This again being very similar to Austria 2019 but it was penalised with a 5 second penalty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAQ3AhTeE

It's funny hearing Max protesting ''He pushed me off the track'' during his defensive outside path of Rosberg's inside overtake, and he know's it was wrong for this to happen to him, hence Rosberg's penalty; yet less than three years later here he is committing the same offence on another driver and expecting to get away with it as it's ''hard and fair racing and either he is allowed to do that or he stays at home''. Double standards for sure.

That was 100% Rosberg. Check his on-board and how late he turned in, that was a carbon copy of what he did to Lewis in Austria.

You cannot compare the two.

The ruling was that he forced another driver off the track. 5 sec penalty and another reminder that this is a punishable offence

Having watched numerous replays (of last weekend and several others in the past - not all involving Max!) I'm now beginning to shift my position on whether it was deserving of a penalty.

There WAS the opportunity for him moving closer to the apex (he only starts to turn in once he's shifted down to second gear - maybe he didn't want to risk spinning the rears?) but he definitely delays the turn-in so as to move Charles closer to the outside of turn 3, not wanting to repeat the previous lap.

I would like to see his telemetry on throttle input once he knew Charles was alongside, but all in all I'd now agree that it ventures into the 'crowding' category regardless of my previous comments on Leclerc being equally responsible (I still believe he should have hung back and gone for the switchback with DRS, but there we go).

Maybe my racing emotions got the better of me in the days after the race, but I know accept that it was a risky move and perhaps deserving of a penalty.

Great debate, though 8)

That's absolutely fine and in my mind commendable, not many people change their minds about something.

I would still want to know why it took them 3 hours to deliberate this issue when it took them only 15' or so to penalize Vettel, but I don't think we'll ever find out.


I'm pretty sure they said it took so long as the drivers had to fulfil the media commitments first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7715
JamWalsh wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
That was 100% Rosberg. Check his on-board and how late he turned in, that was a carbon copy of what he did to Lewis in Austria.

You cannot compare the two.

The ruling was that he forced another driver off the track. 5 sec penalty and another reminder that this is a punishable offence

Having watched numerous replays (of last weekend and several others in the past - not all involving Max!) I'm now beginning to shift my position on whether it was deserving of a penalty.

There WAS the opportunity for him moving closer to the apex (he only starts to turn in once he's shifted down to second gear - maybe he didn't want to risk spinning the rears?) but he definitely delays the turn-in so as to move Charles closer to the outside of turn 3, not wanting to repeat the previous lap.

I would like to see his telemetry on throttle input once he knew Charles was alongside, but all in all I'd now agree that it ventures into the 'crowding' category regardless of my previous comments on Leclerc being equally responsible (I still believe he should have hung back and gone for the switchback with DRS, but there we go).

Maybe my racing emotions got the better of me in the days after the race, but I know accept that it was a risky move and perhaps deserving of a penalty.

Great debate, though 8)

That's absolutely fine and in my mind commendable, not many people change their minds about something.

I would still want to know why it took them 3 hours to deliberate this issue when it took them only 15' or so to penalize Vettel, but I don't think we'll ever find out.


I'm pretty sure they said it took so long as the drivers had to fulfil the media commitments first.

Ah thank you, I missed that part


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
MistaVega23 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
And yet more precedent for crowding another driver off the course, Rosberg vs Verstappen at Germany 2016. This again being very similar to Austria 2019 but it was penalised with a 5 second penalty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAQ3AhTeE

It's funny hearing Max protesting ''He pushed me off the track'' during his defensive outside path of Rosberg's inside overtake, and he know's it was wrong for this to happen to him, hence Rosberg's penalty; yet less than three years later here he is committing the same offence on another driver and expecting to get away with it as it's ''hard and fair racing and either he is allowed to do that or he stays at home''. Double standards for sure.

That was 100% Rosberg. Check his on-board and how late he turned in, that was a carbon copy of what he did to Lewis in Austria.

You cannot compare the two.

The ruling was that he forced another driver off the track. 5 sec penalty and another reminder that this is a punishable offence

Having watched numerous replays (of last weekend and several others in the past - not all involving Max!) I'm now beginning to shift my position on whether it was deserving of a penalty.

There WAS the opportunity for him moving closer to the apex (he only starts to turn in once he's shifted down to second gear - maybe he didn't want to risk spinning the rears?) but he definitely delays the turn-in so as to move Charles closer to the outside of turn 3, not wanting to repeat the previous lap.

I would like to see his telemetry on throttle input once he knew Charles was alongside, but all in all I'd now agree that it ventures into the 'crowding' category regardless of my previous comments on Leclerc being equally responsible (I still believe he should have hung back and gone for the switchback with DRS, but there we go).

Maybe my racing emotions got the better of me in the days after the race, but I know accept that it was a risky move and perhaps deserving of a penalty.

Great debate, though 8)


Leclerc did not hang back and deliberately cost himself forward momentum in order to go for a switchback because the defensive line that he was taking that worked on lap 68 he knew was likely to work on lap 69, 70 and 71 too, as his car was strong in a straight line and getting good traction and drive out of turn three played into his cars strengths. In fact on lap 69 he is more confident with taking the outside path around turn three as he is actually pretty much dead level with Max on lap 69 but on lap 68 he is a bit behind Max, (maybe about 40% to 50% of his car is overlapping on lap 68 compared to 100% on lap 69), and still manages to outdrag Max into turn four, so I am very confident Leclerc would have easily outdragged Max again on lap 69 and potentially the last two laps after that if the racing played out in a similar fashion to lap 68.

He had no reason to assume that Max would suddenly change his approach to being dirty and shoving him off because Max had shown the stewards and the viewng public the clean method of racing on lap 68 so surely Max couldn't dare to change his method for any later lap as the change in etiquette would stand out like a sore thumb to the stewards meaning a definite penalty for Max. So Leclerc had to just assume that Max would be forced to keep racing clean for the rest of the race into these corners, in which case taking the outside path for turn three so that he could get a better run down to turn four should likely be sufficient to cleanly defend his position for the rest of the race. So Leclerc happily left the door open for Max to take the inside path for turn three on lap 69 as this was part of CL's clean defensive driving attempts to see the race out with.

Max having tried to race cleanly and fairly on lap 68 realised that likely Leclerc had sussed out where CL needed to be quick to hold Max off, (e.g. taking the outside path through turn three and allowing Max the inside path for turn three), and so rather than risking not winning the race by obliging with clean racing for laps 69, 70 and 71 only to still lose to CL's fair and sound defensive driving strategy, he figured his best chances for the win were instead to change his strategy and play dirty by breaching the crowding a driver off the circuit rule, figuring that outside of unsafe track rejoins, this rule has only sporadically been punished in the past, (possibly only three times, Magnussen - Belgium 2014, Rosberg - Germany 2016 and Magnussen - Hungary 2017), and then just hope that the stewards would not have the stones to apply the rules correctly on this particular occasion to change the outcome of a second race in three after Canada 2019's uproar.

So Charles had no choice but to keep defending and racing in a fair way, and hoping that Max would also continue to race fairly, and if Max were to have any kind of naughty change of approach such as described in the paragraph above, that CL would be protected by the stewards in them penalising Max for any unfair racecraft. Unfortunately Leclerc was let down by the stewards and not protected by them in the end, but he was not to know all this when trying to defend the lead on lap 69, he just had to have faith in them and Max and he was betrayed by all parties. He is absolutely the victim here and it is not right for him to lose his first win in this way.

So in the end Max gambled 'correctly' and successfully abused the system to win, but he should take no great pride in this, only shame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:30 am
Posts: 3
JamWalsh wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
That's absolutely fine and in my mind commendable, not many people change their minds about something.

I would still want to know why it took them 3 hours to deliberate this issue when it took them only 15' or so to penalize Vettel, but I don't think we'll ever find out.


I'm pretty sure they said it took so long as the drivers had to fulfil the media commitments first.


Yes, that was the excuse. I don't like it though. When this would have happened in lap 5 there would have been a decision in 5-10 minutes and there would never have been a driver interrogation. I think an investigation like this shouldn't have to be performed for (possible) 5 sec penalties.

It may look like a penalty in the last rounds would affect the race more, and therefore deserves more research, but a 5 sec penalty in the first half of the race can affect the result just as much.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7813
Location: Belgium
I have read a number of articles on the incident now, have listened to the BBC 5 Live Sports podcast, and watched Nico Rosberg's video. Nobody even makes the effort to quote the rule that governs the situation everybody has been discussing. Isn't that odd?

Even the stewards' report doesn't mention whether they looked at a possible deliberate crowding off the track - despite noting that Verstappen "was in full control of the car while attempting the overtaking move on the inside of car 16".

Everybody tell us what they feel is right or wrong with the decision, but nobody seems to take the trouble of explaining that the rules have been breached.

Edit: I was also thinking about a possible reason Leclerc might have had for staying on the left throughout Verstappen's two attempts; grip. The grip he had optimized his braking first, his acceleration from the corner in the end, and that the lesser grip turning the corner was acceptable as he was taking a longer trajectory anyway. In that middle part, Verstappen was on the grippier line, but only there. I believe it explains how his first attempt played out, and that Verstappen understood this and was determined not to give Leclerc the chance of a re-run, fair or otherwise.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
Fiki wrote:
I have read a number of articles on the incident now, have listened to the BBC 5 Live Sports podcast, and watched Nico Rosberg's video. Nobody even makes the effort to quote the rule that governs the situation everybody has been discussing. Isn't that odd?

Even the stewards' report doesn't mention whether they looked at a possible deliberate crowding off the track - despite noting that Verstappen "was in full control of the car while attempting the overtaking move on the inside of car 16".

Everybody tell us what they feel is right or wrong with the decision, but nobody seems to take the trouble of explaining that the rules have been breached.


Yes.

Someone earlier in this thread posted about Jolyon Palmer and him being overall accepting of the stewards decision in favour of Max, here is the article they linked:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48849024

But here in 2017, a race after the Hulkenberg/Magnussen Hungary 2017 crowding off the track incident he had this to say about being crowded off the track by Alonso:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13147 ... -a-penalty

So he is being inconsistent with his understanding of all of this. They are all clear penalties as crowding off the track has taken place and it's always a breach of the rules when it occurs. Therefore he was right in 2017 about his own incident with Alonso, but in the ensuing two years has somehow forgotten about it by 2019 so that he can then write an article titled 'Max Verstappen and Charles Leclerc show F1 future is bright' in which he is essentially forced to agree with the stewards as it helps fit the narrative of his article better. He wants to show that these two had a great, clean battle in Austria and long may this racing between them continue.

I like Palmer and I think he has good insight on a lot of things, but here is a clear contradiction on his part and even he is partially buying into the idea that it is ok to force another competitor off the circuit.

The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:41 am
Posts: 807
Location: Toronto, Canada
F1 Racer wrote:
Fiki wrote:

The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.


Yeah that's Brundle. I thought he was fairly rude with Binotto in the post-race interviews as well.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2017: 7th | 2018: 8th
Wins: 2 Podiums: 9


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7715
Bentrovato wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Fiki wrote:

The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.


Yeah that's Brundle. I thought he was fairly rude with Binotto in the post-race interviews as well.

What did he ask? I did not watch the post race interviews, was he out of order?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3854
F1 Racer wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Remember Vettel does not get the penalty in Canada for unsafely rejoining the circuit as his rejoin is completely out of his hands due to the car being out of control and skidding across the grass. He got the penalty for having control of his car again once he was in the middle of the circuit but he continued to move further right to squeeze Hamilton off the track after he had regained control, (the stewards had the telemetry and used it in their decision making so it was nothing to do with the unsafe rejoin, it was the squeezing post-track rejoin). If Vettel had stayed left, he wouldn't have got the 5 second penalty but this would have allowed Hamilton to get a run on him and possibly pass him. Max could have stayed further right in Austria but that would have allowed Leclerc to get a run on him and repass him like Leclerc actually did the lap before, so he squeezed Leclerc off instead to deny him a chance of passing him.


The stewards in Canada wrote:
The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.


The emphasis is mine but this statement from the penalty report clearly states that re-entering the track IS a factor in the penalty being applied. Regaining control isn't even in the report. Please don't twist the truth to make irrelevant points.

[Source: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... oYkZs.html]


Firstly Vettel couldn't do a thing about how he rejoined as he was out of control and I have seen an article about stewards looking at his steering inputs as he got back on track that is the key to this Canada issue:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/reas ... a/4461461/

You even concede that Hamilton was forced to take evasive action in the comments you posted, well wasn't Leclerc forced to take evasive action from Max's squeezing in the same way? These two incidents are very close at their core.

One involves the aggressor coming from off the track. The other does not. That seems to be the key difference.


Yes, but logically this does not seem to be a correct difference that one can make, (even if the stewards are currently illogically seeing it as a difference).

The reason why those two rejoins were deemed unsafe is because another competitor got hampered by the rejoin and forced off the circuit, (or Hamilton would have been forced off but decided to brake sharply instead).

Had Hamillton been 5 seconds behind Seb, instead of about 1.5 seconds behind him, then Vettel could have done the exact same movements after his mistake and he would have completely gotten away with it because no other car was affected. The same with Max in Japan, if he goes off at the chicane in the middle of the race and immediately comes back on in an unsafe and aggressive manner, albeit with no other cars around, he again would be unpunished and Charlie's quote even confirms as much.

So if the key issue with the unsafe rejoins is other competitors being forced to take avoiding action by going off the course, (Hamilton), or literally being physically forced off the course, (Kimi)
then it is clear that drivers should not be forced off the track.

So now we apply this logic to Austria 2019, Leclerc clearly gets edged off the track by Max, or crowded off, like the rules mention. So if the problem all along is cars shouldn't be forced off like Kimi was and Hamilton would have been, then Max is guilty of treating Leclerc in the same way he treated Kimi, and the same way Vettel treated Hamilton. So a penalty should have been given to Max for this.

Now I accept that the stewards are seeing a difference between a recent track rejoiner and a normal overtaking move, my issue is that this difference they are seeing at the moment is not correct or logical, as the victim suffers the same ultimate transgression across all of these cases, namely being shoved off the track when they don't want to be.

If you're already on the track, you have a more or less equal claim to the tarmac. If you're off the track, cars on track nearby have that claim over you. That's the difference. The point you're arguing wilfully ignores the angle the FIA have taken in both your comparative cases.

_________________
Forum rules: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14979

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3854
F1 Racer wrote:
The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.

The FIA has long considered corners and straights to work differently to each other when it comes to running a car off the track. Usually they side with the car on the inside, taking the natural line and forcing the one on the outside to yield.

Some fans call it hard racing, some call it crowding/blocking. I myself would like to see it made explicitly clear for Silverstone onwards, but for now that's how it works. That's why there's a difference between Spain 2016 and Austria 2019. The crash in 2016 may have also played a part but technically is irrelevant.

_________________
Forum rules: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14979

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1672
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."

In that rule, they say 'or any other abnormal change of direction', which infers that the deliberate crowding of the car beyond the edge of the track is by an abnormal change of direction. That would support the idea that following the normal racing line round a corner (as if the other car doesn't exist - or that you have no responsibility to take account of the other car) and using the full width of the track can be considered a normal change of direction and deliberate crowding of a car off the track involves an abnormal change of direction.

It cannot be the normal racing line anyway if there is a car alongside, so the line is being chosen with the other car in mind, and the driver can premeditate what path he is taking around the corner.

Vettel dived into a corner with Massa on the outside and had left it so late that he struggled to stay on the track and was penalised. He may not have intended to force Massa off the track, but he was careless in doing so. That is a case where it was probably not deliberate, but was penalised because he should have been in control and responsible for his positioning.

I think the rule does need to be clarified, because blocking or crowding a car off the track is liable to hinder other drivers - as is using the full width of the track when there is a car alongside you.

So the rule seems ambiguous. The rule also does not mention anything about applying only on a particular part of the track, so it applies to all of the track.

My personal opinion is that the racing should take place on the track and both cars should be entitled to space on the track to do so. That is what I would prefer to see, as what is happening and permitted now seems to be lowering the skill level required to overtake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7813
Location: Belgium
F1 Racer wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I have read a number of articles on the incident now, have listened to the BBC 5 Live Sports podcast, and watched Nico Rosberg's video. Nobody even makes the effort to quote the rule that governs the situation everybody has been discussing. Isn't that odd?

Even the stewards' report doesn't mention whether they looked at a possible deliberate crowding off the track - despite noting that Verstappen "was in full control of the car while attempting the overtaking move on the inside of car 16".

Everybody tell us what they feel is right or wrong with the decision, but nobody seems to take the trouble of explaining that the rules have been breached.


Yes.

Someone earlier in this thread posted about Jolyon Palmer and him being overall accepting of the stewards decision in favour of Max, here is the article they linked:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48849024

But here in 2017, a race after the Hulkenberg/Magnussen Hungary 2017 crowding off the track incident he had this to say about being crowded off the track by Alonso:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13147 ... -a-penalty

So he is being inconsistent with his understanding of all of this. They are all clear penalties as crowding off the track has taken place and it's always a breach of the rules when it occurs. Therefore he was right in 2017 about his own incident with Alonso, but in the ensuing two years has somehow forgotten about it by 2019 so that he can then write an article titled 'Max Verstappen and Charles Leclerc show F1 future is bright' in which he is essentially forced to agree with the stewards as it helps fit the narrative of his article better. He wants to show that these two had a great, clean battle in Austria and long may this racing between them continue.

I like Palmer and I think he has good insight on a lot of things, but here is a clear contradiction on his part and even he is partially buying into the idea that it is ok to force another competitor off the circuit.

The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.
Yes and no. Jolyon seems to be inconsistent in his views on running somebody off the track, but at the race following his incident with Alonso at Rivage in Francorchamps, Charlie Whiting "explained" the difference between the two cases. So I'm glad you dug up the Palmer case, it helped me find this article back.
http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/131590
The article states that :
Quote:
According to the FIA's guidelines, which were made clear to the drivers back in 2013, if a driver is intending to overtake on the outside, and at the apex of the corner he is in front, he must be given room on the exit of the corner.
To my mind, this means that either those guidelines should be published and available to every person interested, or they should simply be incorporated into the International Sporting Code. They either are valid, or they aren't, and keeping them "secret" or widely open to interpretation is wrong in a sport that still carries some danger to the competitors themselves.
It would be interesting to know whether Jolyon is torn between knowing about this explanation (although he wasn't there in 2013), or whether he thinks it is nonsense, as I do.

Incidently, the very word guidelines reminds me of the explanation of the 'Code' in the Pirates of the Carribean films.

There's another problem with that; does it mean that in 2013 the guidelines had to be made clear to the drivers, although every single one of whom had proved he was good enough to be in F1? After all, they had successfully won their superlicence? Why was it necessary to explain a guideline that all had supposedly raced under for years?

_________________
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: Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
P-F1 Mod wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.

The FIA has long considered corners and straights to work differently to each other when it comes to running a car off the track. Usually they side with the car on the inside, taking the natural line and forcing the one on the outside to yield.

Some fans call it hard racing, some call it crowding/blocking. I myself would like to see it made explicitly clear for Silverstone onwards, but for now that's how it works. That's why there's a difference between Spain 2016 and Austria 2019. The crash in 2016 may have also played a part but technically is irrelevant.


What's the difference between Germany 2016 and Austria 2019 though?

Spain 2016 was on a straight yes, but Germany 2016 was on a corner with the inside driver overtaking and forcing the outside driver off. It was basically identical to Austria 2019.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
Fiki wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I have read a number of articles on the incident now, have listened to the BBC 5 Live Sports podcast, and watched Nico Rosberg's video. Nobody even makes the effort to quote the rule that governs the situation everybody has been discussing. Isn't that odd?

Even the stewards' report doesn't mention whether they looked at a possible deliberate crowding off the track - despite noting that Verstappen "was in full control of the car while attempting the overtaking move on the inside of car 16".

Everybody tell us what they feel is right or wrong with the decision, but nobody seems to take the trouble of explaining that the rules have been breached.


Yes.

Someone earlier in this thread posted about Jolyon Palmer and him being overall accepting of the stewards decision in favour of Max, here is the article they linked:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48849024

But here in 2017, a race after the Hulkenberg/Magnussen Hungary 2017 crowding off the track incident he had this to say about being crowded off the track by Alonso:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13147 ... -a-penalty

So he is being inconsistent with his understanding of all of this. They are all clear penalties as crowding off the track has taken place and it's always a breach of the rules when it occurs. Therefore he was right in 2017 about his own incident with Alonso, but in the ensuing two years has somehow forgotten about it by 2019 so that he can then write an article titled 'Max Verstappen and Charles Leclerc show F1 future is bright' in which he is essentially forced to agree with the stewards as it helps fit the narrative of his article better. He wants to show that these two had a great, clean battle in Austria and long may this racing between them continue.

I like Palmer and I think he has good insight on a lot of things, but here is a clear contradiction on his part and even he is partially buying into the idea that it is ok to force another competitor off the circuit.

The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.
Yes and no. Jolyon seems to be inconsistent in his views on running somebody off the track, but at the race following his incident with Alonso at Rivage in Francorchamps, Charlie Whiting "explained" the difference between the two cases. So I'm glad you dug up the Palmer case, it helped me find this article back.
http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/131590
The article states that :
Quote:
According to the FIA's guidelines, which were made clear to the drivers back in 2013, if a driver is intending to overtake on the outside, and at the apex of the corner he is in front, he must be given room on the exit of the corner.
To my mind, this means that either those guidelines should be published and available to every person interested, or they should simply be incorporated into the International Sporting Code. They either are valid, or they aren't, and keeping them "secret" or widely open to interpretation is wrong in a sport that still carries some danger to the competitors themselves.
It would be interesting to know whether Jolyon is torn between knowing about this explanation (although he wasn't there in 2013), or whether he thinks it is nonsense, as I do.

Incidently, the very word guidelines reminds me of the explanation of the 'Code' in the Pirates of the Carribean films.

There's another problem with that; does it mean that in 2013 the guidelines had to be made clear to the drivers, although every single one of whom had proved he was good enough to be in F1? After all, they had successfully won their superlicence? Why was it necessary to explain a guideline that all had supposedly raced under for years?



What I would say about that 'secret' rule of a driver overtaking on the outside must be given room if he is ahead on the apex, it is interesting that the converse situation is not also stated by the FIA, for example: ''If the driver overtaking on the outside is not ahead at the apex then the inside defending driver is free to run the outside driver out of road, give him no space on the track and shove him off if need be.''

I guess this is because the idea of the FIA sanctioning another driver to be shoved off the track is unpalatable for the FIA to explicitly put into their rules because it is essentially poor racing etiquette still, (a bit like the weaving and only being allowed to move to block once rule which is good racing etiquette). So racing etiquette and avoiding contact with other cars is still king really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7813
Location: Belgium
F1 Racer wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.

The FIA has long considered corners and straights to work differently to each other when it comes to running a car off the track. Usually they side with the car on the inside, taking the natural line and forcing the one on the outside to yield.

Some fans call it hard racing, some call it crowding/blocking. I myself would like to see it made explicitly clear for Silverstone onwards, but for now that's how it works. That's why there's a difference between Spain 2016 and Austria 2019. The crash in 2016 may have also played a part but technically is irrelevant.


What's the difference between Germany 2016 and Austria 2019 though?

Spain 2016 was on a straight yes, but Germany 2016 was on a corner with the inside driver overtaking and forcing the outside driver off. It was basically identical to Austria 2019.
I'm at a loss to understand what P-F1 Mod means by his statement. Spain 2016 was "logic" in that Hamilton arrived alongside Rosberg too late to be given room, and the main reason Rosberg wasn't at fault was that his move started before Hamilton's. (As it happens, and as I noted at the time, Hamilton should have studied an earlier case in which this happened to him; Bahrain 2012 (I believe).)

Running on a straight and taking the natural line had nothing to do with the outcome of Spain 2016, as that natural line would have been for both Rosberg and Hamilton to continue straight ahead. But the natural line is never once mentioned in the rules. The racing line is, but only once. Applying it to explain something during a corner is interpretation, not quoting a rule.

_________________
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: Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
P-F1 Mod wrote:
The FIA has long considered corners and straights to work differently to each other when it comes to running a car off the track. Usually they side with the car on the inside, taking the natural line and forcing the one on the outside to yield.


But on corner entry, the car on the outside is on the natural line, (or racing line), and he wants to chop his car across to the inside apex kerbing for the fastest route through the corner which again is the natural line, but he is expected to give space to the car on his inside and not just chop across to the apex like this. Instead he is expected to take a slower route through the corner in a path that does not go anywhere near the apex.

So if we divide the corner phase into two, the first phase is pre-apex and the second phase is post-apex.

Now during the pre-apex phase, it is not deemed acceptable by anyone for the outside car to just drive into the apex of the corner as though the inside car is not there, and crash into them, (e.g. Schumacher/Villeneuve - Jerez 1997). So the outside car is expected to respect the inside car's right to space in the pre-apex phase of the corner.

Now during the post-apex phase, the outside car is closer to the more natural exit out of the corner. Why is it acceptable for the inside car to now just chop across to the outside of the corner and crash into the outside car? Out of fairness this doesn't make sense when the outside driver is expected to show respect earlier in the corner, shouldn't the inside car show respect later in the corner? How can the inside car claim he is taking up the 'natural line' when the outside car is already physically there occupying that natural line? Why can one car claim some space on the track that another car is already physically occupying?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3854
F1 Racer wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.

The FIA has long considered corners and straights to work differently to each other when it comes to running a car off the track. Usually they side with the car on the inside, taking the natural line and forcing the one on the outside to yield.

Some fans call it hard racing, some call it crowding/blocking. I myself would like to see it made explicitly clear for Silverstone onwards, but for now that's how it works. That's why there's a difference between Spain 2016 and Austria 2019. The crash in 2016 may have also played a part but technically is irrelevant.


What's the difference between Germany 2016 and Austria 2019 though?

Spain 2016 was on a straight yes, but Germany 2016 was on a corner with the inside driver overtaking and forcing the outside driver off. It was basically identical to Austria 2019.

Maybe something to do with it being before the exit of the corner that the squeeze happened? I'm not sure, I do see your point about Germany, but you'd have to ask the stewards. It may be something to do with the more lenient attitude the stewards have been taking for the last couple of years, in which case a change of approach renders the comparisons we both used moot.

_________________
Forum rules: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14979

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:28 pm
Posts: 105
I think Verstappen should have been punished, but let me play Devil's advocate here...

F1 Racer wrote:
How can the inside car claim he is taking up the 'natural line' when the outside car is already physically there occupying that natural line? Why can one car claim some space on the track that another car is already physically occupying?

But was he? When Verstappen squeezed himself next to Leclerc at the apex, didn't he basically inherit the racing line and basically turn Leclerc into someone who was then trying to pull off an overtake on the outside?

The lap prior he arrived to the scene much later and thus couldn't claim the line and had to leave room for Leclerc.

It doesn't really matter anyway. I think Verstappen is Just someone who tries to exploit the rules, and gets away with it often. I once read this is what gives many great athletes their edge: they cheat. It's like football players who claim for free kicks when they are unjustified.

I doubt he would have been able to pass Leclerc because of the acceleration advantage of the Ferrari. So I think he did something mighty clever, he took his chance when he knew a five or ten second penalty wouldn't matter anymore.

He cheated and got away with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1178
Location: Los Angeles, California
Ruste13 wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
I still remember when people complained about Michael Schumacher when Juan Montoya tried to pass him around the outside of Tosa in Imola in 2004.

They called Schumacher a dirty driver for that and now here is Max doing a worse version of it and now it's okay to do such a thing and it's good racing! :lol:



Your signature sums it up perfectly.


:lol: My favorite line from one of my favorite films. :D

Though my (admittedly vague) point was that the perception of what is good racing seems to have changed so much in the last 15 years. DRS, driving others off the circuit...it’s as if people are so desperate for overtaking that they’ll take it however they can get it! :lol:

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


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: kleefton, mikeyg123 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