planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:00 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 1437
Exediron wrote:
JN23 wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Was Norris unlucky with safety car timing or was his pace poor (or both I guess)? How did he end up multiple places behind Sainz after starting 10 places ahead?

Anyone?

His side of the garage got the strategy wrong. He (like Bottas) committed to a one-stop on the Hard early on, but was forced to abandon it after it became clear the tyre was too slow. Sainz made the idea one-stop strategy work, and did indeed benefit from the safety cars bunching the field twice.


Thanks :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16533
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.


That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9980
I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 773
mikeyg123 wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.


That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.


Very good point.

The final 90% of the SC phase where the cars are at their safest, the issue is usually sorted out by then. During the first 10% of the SC phase it is pretty much a VSC phase, only the VSC has the advantage of being more race neutralising and can also end quicker and go straight back into the racing phase at the drop of a hat.

There really is no reason to use the SC much at all, maybe in monsoon conditions to control the pace, or if there is some kind of track blockage or heavy debris on the circuit. Whenever a standard mechanical DNF happens this should easily be coverable with a VSC at most. I really hate that a random car retiring due to a blown engine has the capability of completely transforming the race in this way at any point. This definitely did not use to be the case and current F1 goes overkill on using the safety car.

Rather than using the safety car as a last resort, it seems that the attitude by race control whenever any sort of minor incident happens is ''can we get away with introducing the safety car here to help liven things up?''. It's tantamount to Bernie's ridiculous 'sprinklers' idea, only being utilised in a more stealthy way under the guise of 'safety'. It contrives the race in just the same manner however.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1336
mikeyg123 wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.


That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.

That’s an excellent point and completely true. A VSC was ample for that scenario, tractors and dangerous but it was off line and out of the line of fire. No need for it. There is 0% chance a car could hit that tractor when under the VSC. If it was wet I would say yes use the SC but not in the dry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1336
Mercedes strategy for Hamilton was fine by me, they made all the right calls for attempting to win and not concerned with anything else. They told Hamilton to do the opposite to Verstappen which was his only chance to win the race. If they both pit then Verstappen wins.

The final Hamilton pit stop was again worth a roll of the dice, if he had got Albon at that point or earlier into turn 4 he probably had a 30-40% chance of getting Verstappen at the win with just under 2 laps to close 1 second.

Hamilton also played his part by doing a poor SC restart, note what Verstappen did is how you do a restart at Brazil with these super draggy, high slipstream cars. You need to drive all the way to the line and then go for it, especially if on lesser tyres. The slipstream is too strong.

Mercedes strategy for Bottas on the other hand was terrible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7953
Greenman wrote:
.

Re. Vettel/LeClerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

You can at least get his name right, even if it is to channel your inner McEnroe...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 3:23 pm
Posts: 81
Asphalt_World wrote:
The speed advantage Seb had over Charles along that straight, if he'd have kept it straight for another half a second or so, he'd have cleared Charles cleanly and not needed to move across at all.


Charles was positioned too well. I'm sure Seb could see that, was anxious, and was trying to reclaim the room be needed for the next corner.

I like Seb a lot... But the evidence is too strong that he is poor in wheel to wheel battles... Or at least not as good as when he won his championships (conceding that he was adept enough to win four championships).


Last edited by da4an1qu1 on Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 3:23 pm
Posts: 81
Covalent wrote:
I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...


Do you have the details on this? Is there at replay somewhere showing what transpired?

EDIT: I see it now:

https://youtu.be/38vHg53W6R0

I assume in this instance that the yellow zones had already been deployed well before he activated DRS. It would seem most likely.

Given that, yes I agree, Sainz should have been penalised according to the rules :-(( Vettel should have been penalised as well. I agree with the other poster that it isn't right that Hamilton has some penalty points, and Vettel doesn't.

I also have to say... F1 really has made a rod for its own back with the blue flag rules.... I don't like the race at the front being disrupted by the back-markers, but because of the rules, it also makes no sense for lapped cars to be filed in with the train of cars behind the safety car. As it would be chaotic waving blue flags at cars racing in close quarters, at the restarts.

Which leads us to the worst aspect of F1, demonstrated today. We lose two or more laps under the SC to allow cars to unlap themselves *and* catch up to the back of the pack. I absolutely despise this. The cost is so high, I seriously would rather that lapped cars are not required to yield at all. And Brazil is quite interesting in this respect, because Ocon showed last year how absurd the blue flag rule can be. Had he passed Verstappen, if Verstappen could stay in his tow, exactly when do they decide to put up blue flags for Ocon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
F1_Ernie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I've just got in and read all the posts to see if they tally with my views of the race, I managed to watch the race on a phone but with no sound so there might be certain things I'm not aware of.

First point of interest is why the SC for Bottas' car, and that seems a unanimous opinion, I even question if it needed a VSC, a local yellow would have sufficed, I'm sorry but all I see here is it allowing Ferrari back into the race.

Second point is yet again the woeful strategy from Mercedes in regards to Hamilton, the first stop was good but I have to say with the benefit of minutes to work it out, when the suspect SC gets called and a decision has to be made in seconds rather than minutes then Vowles can't make a decision. Hamilton could have made a free pit stop on to fresh tyres but having to think quick yet again Vowles gets stuck in the headlights. For Red Bull it was the immediate obvious thing to do, they probably thought it would be the obvious play by Mercedes?

This then left Hamilton vulnerable to all the cars behind him on fresher, softer tyres which then also seemed to trigger the pit stop after the second late SC to make amends for the earlier error, a crazy thing to do with only 5 laps to go and losing Hamilton 2 positions on the track. I understand that was Hamilton's call but damage had already been done with Hamilton making an unwise call perhaps because he can't 100% trust Vowles?

The third point is the collision between Vettel and Leclerc, I instantly called it as being Vettel's fault but now it's a rule that if you crash your teammate out then it doesn't matter?

For comparison I instantly called the 5 second penalty on Hamilton for hitting and spinning Albon and that seemingly was administered within minutes, not the hours it took to penalise Leclerc for basically crashing Verstappen out of a race.

Yet again I'm unimpressed by Masi's decisions, an uncalled for SC, penalty points on Hamilton's license whilst Vettel gets nothing.


I think Hamilton pushed for the undercut at the first stop, there was the issue with the battery what got Hamilton angry then at the final stop Mercedes believed Hamilton would lose just 1 place when he actually lost 2. Red bulls pitstops are also excellent.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/17/ham ... des-admit/

I was at a disadvantage watching the race on a phone with no sound whilst having dinner out with family, so the first stop I can't even give credit to Vowles whilst the last stop was actually the team's idea and not Hamilton's, they are in for a heap of pain next year if Red Bull give Verstappen a WDC capable car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

Yeah I've recently become aware of that and now understand the decision but still the car and tractor were out of harms way and could have been covered safely with a VSC in my opinion, but you like you say they were probably covering themselves legally, we need cranes not tractors.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
sandman1347 wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

Yeah I considered that too but I wonder why they didn't just leave the car there rather than disrupting the race the way they did. The car was safely out of harms way.

Yeah I was going to say that myself but forgot.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
P-F1 Mod wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

Yeah I considered that too but I wonder why they didn't just leave the car there rather than disrupting the race the way they did. The car was safely out of harms way.

The "out of harm's way" argument seems to no longer exist in F1. I can see the logic from a safety angle, but it causes these messes. Of course, if they left a car at the side of the road and someone managed to hit it, there'd be uproar.

I would venture that were it was parked made it almost impossible to hit in the natural cause of an accident.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16533
da4an1qu1 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...


Do you have the details on this? Is there at replay somewhere showing what transpired?

EDIT: I see it now:

https://youtu.be/38vHg53W6R0

I assume in this instance that the yellow zones had already been deployed well before he activated DRS. It would seem most likely.

Given that, yes I agree, Sainz should have been penalised according to the rules :-(( Vettel should have been penalised as well. I agree with the other poster that it isn't right that Hamilton has some penalty points, and Vettel doesn't.

I also have to say... F1 really has made a rod for its own back with the blue flag rules.... I don't like the race at the front being disrupted by the back-markers, but because of the rules, it also makes no sense for lapped cars to be filed in with the train of cars behind the safety car. As it would be chaotic waving blue flags at cars racing in close quarters, at the restarts.

Which leads us to the worst aspect of F1, demonstrated today. We lose two or more laps under the SC to allow cars to unlap themselves *and* catch up to the back of the pack. I absolutely despise this. The cost is so high, I seriously would rather that lapped cars are not required to yield at all. And Brazil is quite interesting in this respect, because Ocon showed last year how absurd the blue flag rule can be. Had he passed Verstappen, if Verstappen could stay in his tow, exactly when do they decide to put up blue flags for Ocon.


That's not the reason they let the cars unlap themselves.

If the cars can't unlap then you end up with a situation where the race is split in half by the race leader. The leader could have just lapped the guy in 8th with the guy in 7th just ahead and then the safety car gets called out. 7th and 8th go from being 2 seconds apart to a lap apart.

With the amount of safety cars we have now that would just mess with the race too much.

We should really just not be using the safety car to be honest. Especially if we are actually recovering the cars before it has even properly taken effect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
SlipstreamF1 wrote:
How ironic how the real racing didn't begin until after the championship was decided. Every man for himself. Even Lewis who really had nothing to prove other than to prove that he's fastest of the pack. I would've preferred Lewis take things easy and coast to finish. There was no need for him to get into the thicke of things

For me SC car racing is not real racing.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
Flash2k11 wrote:
Really not happy with the way the stewarding is going this year. I don't think i'm the only one who thinks the stewards had half an eye on Vettel's ever increasing penalty point count (which now doesn't decrease until the middle of next year) when deciding no further action.

Driving into someone like that is surely the textbook definition of an avoidable incident?

The SC call was pretty bogus too, Bottas' car was fine where it was. Then we have the blind eye turned to driving like the move Leclerc pulled on Norris at the start of the race. If that kind of chop is now deemed acceptable conduct then it wont be long before we have another car getting launched into the air via tangled wheels. They gave Verstappen an inch in Austra and now a lot of them are taking the whole mile with this kind of driving.

Yeah I was going to venture this as well, Vettel is on 7 points which run out next June, penalising him would have put him perilously close to serving a 1 race ban because what are the odds of Vettel not doing anything else worthy of penalty again in the meantime unless again the stewards have need to turn a blind eye to it in fear of Vettel being banned for 1 race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 773
da4an1qu1 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...


Do you have the details on this? Is there at replay somewhere showing what transpired?

EDIT: I see it now:

https://youtu.be/38vHg53W6R0

I assume in this instance that the yellow zones had already been deployed well before he activated DRS. It would seem most likely.

Given that, yes I agree, Sainz should have been penalised according to the rules :-(( Vettel should have been penalised as well. I agree with the other poster that it isn't right that Hamilton has some penalty points, and Vettel doesn't.

I also have to say... F1 really has made a rod for its own back with the blue flag rules.... I don't like the race at the front being disrupted by the back-markers, but because of the rules, it also makes no sense for lapped cars to be filed in with the train of cars behind the safety car. As it would be chaotic waving blue flags at cars racing in close quarters, at the restarts.

Which leads us to the worst aspect of F1, demonstrated today. We lose two or more laps under the SC to allow cars to unlap themselves *and* catch up to the back of the pack. I absolutely despise this. The cost is so high, I seriously would rather that lapped cars are not required to yield at all. And Brazil is quite interesting in this respect, because Ocon showed last year how absurd the blue flag rule can be. Had he passed Verstappen, if Verstappen could stay in his tow, exactly when do they decide to put up blue flags for Ocon.


It would not be chaotic at all. Safety car periods throughout the 90's and 00's did not have lapped cars unlapping themselves and there was no issue during safety car restarts with blue flags or anything like that.

I think it is ludicrous that lapped cars are asked to move out of the way under the SC, but it helps with the general theme of 'contrivance' for the SC period as a whole. The powers that be want an SC restart to have the top guys all nose-to-tail in the hopes of crashes and position changes at the front. It's bad enough that lead cars lose all of their lead that they had built up, but at least during the 90's and 00's the back markers physically being in the way used to give the leader a bit of a buffer on the restart.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
mikeyg123 wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.


That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.

So that renders the reasoning as being totally mute.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16533
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.


That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.

So that renders the reasoning as being totally mute.


This is far from the first time. There is only two possible explanations at this stage.

1. Michael Masi is an idiot.

2. The safety car is not being used in good faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
Siao7 wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

Re. Vettel/LeClerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

You can at least get his name right, even if it is to channel your inner McEnroe...

Maybe he should have gone full English and called him Shoemaker? :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
da4an1qu1 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...


Do you have the details on this? Is there at replay somewhere showing what transpired?

EDIT: I see it now:

https://youtu.be/38vHg53W6R0

I assume in this instance that the yellow zones had already been deployed well before he activated DRS. It would seem most likely.

Given that, yes I agree, Sainz should have been penalised according to the rules :-(( Vettel should have been penalised as well. I agree with the other poster that it isn't right that Hamilton has some penalty points, and Vettel doesn't.

I also have to say... F1 really has made a rod for its own back with the blue flag rules.... I don't like the race at the front being disrupted by the back-markers, but because of the rules, it also makes no sense for lapped cars to be filed in with the train of cars behind the safety car. As it would be chaotic waving blue flags at cars racing in close quarters, at the restarts.

Which leads us to the worst aspect of F1, demonstrated today. We lose two or more laps under the SC to allow cars to unlap themselves *and* catch up to the back of the pack. I absolutely despise this. The cost is so high, I seriously would rather that lapped cars are not required to yield at all. And Brazil is quite interesting in this respect, because Ocon showed last year how absurd the blue flag rule can be. Had he passed Verstappen, if Verstappen could stay in his tow, exactly when do they decide to put up blue flags for Ocon.

Better still just use the VSC. :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9980
da4an1qu1 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
I'm happy for Sainz but if the rules explicitly state that the DRS shall not be used during yellows, then it's a clear cut penalty IMO. I think their reasoning for not handing one was that he slowed down even though he used DRS...


Do you have the details on this? Is there at replay somewhere showing what transpired?

EDIT: I see it now:

https://youtu.be/38vHg53W6R0

I assume in this instance that the yellow zones had already been deployed well before he activated DRS. It would seem most likely.

Given that, yes I agree, Sainz should have been penalised according to the rules :-(( Vettel should have been penalised as well. I agree with the other poster that it isn't right that Hamilton has some penalty points, and Vettel doesn't.

I also have to say... F1 really has made a rod for its own back with the blue flag rules.... I don't like the race at the front being disrupted by the back-markers, but because of the rules, it also makes no sense for lapped cars to be filed in with the train of cars behind the safety car. As it would be chaotic waving blue flags at cars racing in close quarters, at the restarts.

Which leads us to the worst aspect of F1, demonstrated today. We lose two or more laps under the SC to allow cars to unlap themselves *and* catch up to the back of the pack. I absolutely despise this. The cost is so high, I seriously would rather that lapped cars are not required to yield at all. And Brazil is quite interesting in this respect, because Ocon showed last year how absurd the blue flag rule can be. Had he passed Verstappen, if Verstappen could stay in his tow, exactly when do they decide to put up blue flags for Ocon.

Thanks for the video, now it's even more clear. Yeah Hamilton, Vettel and Sainz should all have been penalized in a perfect world (and I wouldn't mind having seen Kimi on the podium as a result :] )

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 773
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

Re. Vettel/LeClerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

You can at least get his name right, even if it is to channel your inner McEnroe...

Maybe he should have gone full English and called him Shoemaker? :)


That would be a cobbler wouldn't it? ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.


That would be a sensible approach if it weren't for the fact that as soon as a safety car is called they bring the tractor on to the track before the cars are lined up. Effectively under VSC conditions. In this case the car was cleared before anyone actually caught the safety car. Not for the first time this season either.

So that renders the reasoning as being totally mute.


This is far from the first time. There is only two possible explanations at this stage.

1. Michael Masi is an idiot.

2. The safety car is not being used in good faith.

You have the same opinion of Masi as me then. :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33518
F1 Racer wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

Re. Vettel/LeClerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

You can at least get his name right, even if it is to channel your inner McEnroe...

Maybe he should have gone full English and called him Shoemaker? :)


That would be a cobbler wouldn't it? ;)

True but then perhaps totally confusing? :lol:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7953
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

Re. Vettel/LeClerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

You can at least get his name right, even if it is to channel your inner McEnroe...

Maybe he should have gone full English and called him Shoemaker? :)

Or Shoemacher? So many possibilities!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 2012
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales
pokerman wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

Yeah I considered that too but I wonder why they didn't just leave the car there rather than disrupting the race the way they did. The car was safely out of harms way.

The "out of harm's way" argument seems to no longer exist in F1. I can see the logic from a safety angle, but it causes these messes. Of course, if they left a car at the side of the road and someone managed to hit it, there'd be uproar.

I would venture that were it was parked made it almost impossible to hit in the natural cause of an accident.
If Leclerc's car had been pushed further left or Vettel spun, we'd have seen a Ferrari hit the Mercedes...

_________________
Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7953
So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 773
Siao7 wrote:
So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems


Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7953
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems


Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.


Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 773
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems


Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.


Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though


No one is saying that the mistake occurred yesterday. The mistake occurred whenever the policies were made that allowed them to chuck in easy SC periods like this. The key takeaway is that incompetent 'mistakes' are still being made that interfere with purity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16533
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems


Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.


Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though


Then why are the cars being recovered before they line up behind the safety car effectively under VSC conditions anyway? And wouldn't it be Masi's policy?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7953
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems


Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.


Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though


No one is saying that the mistake occurred yesterday. The mistake occurred whenever the policies were made that allowed them to chuck in easy SC periods like this. The key takeaway is that incompetent 'mistakes' are still being made that interfere with purity.

I agree and policies should be reviewed every so often


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7953
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems


Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.


Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though


Then why are the cars being recovered before they line up behind the safety car effectively under VSC conditions anyway? And wouldn't it be Masi's policy?

They are recovered ASAP and SC takes some time to bunch up, so I'm not sure what you mean there. I am not sure if Masi wrote this policy or not. Not sure who is responsible for writing the policies either


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 773
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems


Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.


Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though


Then why are the cars being recovered before they line up behind the safety car effectively under VSC conditions anyway? And wouldn't it be Masi's policy?

They are recovered ASAP and SC takes some time to bunch up, so I'm not sure what you mean there. I am not sure if Masi wrote this policy or not. Not sure who is responsible for writing the policies either


I think that is his point though.

If the SC is presumably required for 'really unsafe situations' say, then if that is true, work needs to be delayed by the marshalls in addressing the 'really unsafe situations' until all cars are close up being the safety car. This is because for the first 10%-20% of an SC period the race effectively functions as a VSC period anyhow, so marshalls need to be disciplined and wait until the final 80% of the SC period before moving stricken cars etc.

It just shows that really it is all BS and the likely underlying motivation is to decrease purity/increase fake entertainment.

Further evidence to back this up is their reluctance to add a pit stop time levy on cars pitting under the SC or VSC to prevent unfair time advantages to be gained by having cheap pit stops and taking advantage of a safety procedure in an unsporting way. That and allowing lapped cars to get out of the way so that everyone is nose-to-tail for position, again says to me that these are all sneaky attempts to decrease purity/increase fake entertainment.

And yes, I know the sport will never be 100% pure, but that doesn't mean that it should facilitate unnecessary actions that decrease purity even more than needs be.

It still sickens me that it is seen as a legitimate 'tactic' to try and run long and take advantage of a potential safety procedure to win a race through the use of a cheap pitstop, it is tantamount to cheating and is unsporting, but it's currently viewed as a 'tactical masterstroke' in the F1 community when you pull it off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4406
I've read some interesting stuff on this forum before, but the attempt to call the Ferrari crash a racing incident, and in one case where it seems Charles is to blame, is simply beyond staggering!

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7953
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:

Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.


Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though


Then why are the cars being recovered before they line up behind the safety car effectively under VSC conditions anyway? And wouldn't it be Masi's policy?

They are recovered ASAP and SC takes some time to bunch up, so I'm not sure what you mean there. I am not sure if Masi wrote this policy or not. Not sure who is responsible for writing the policies either


I think that is his point though.

If the SC is presumably required for 'really unsafe situations' say, then if that is true, work needs to be delayed by the marshalls in addressing the 'really unsafe situations' until all cars are close up being the safety car. This is because for the first 10%-20% of an SC period the race effectively functions as a VSC period anyhow, so marshalls need to be disciplined and wait until the final 80% of the SC period before moving stricken cars etc.

It just shows that really it is all BS and the likely underlying motivation is to decrease purity/increase fake entertainment.

Further evidence to back this up is their reluctance to add a pit stop time levy on cars pitting under the SC or VSC to prevent unfair time advantages to be gained by having cheap pit stops and taking advantage of a safety procedure in an unsporting way. That and allowing lapped cars to get out of the way so that everyone is nose-to-tail for position, again says to me that these are all sneaky attempts to decrease purity/increase fake entertainment.

And yes, I know the sport will never be 100% pure, but that doesn't mean that it should facilitate unnecessary actions that decrease purity even more than needs be.

It still sickens me that it is seen as a legitimate 'tactic' to try and run long and take advantage of a potential safety procedure to win a race through the use of a cheap pitstop, it is tantamount to cheating and is unsporting, but it's currently viewed as a 'tactical masterstroke' in the F1 community when you pull it off.

Racers do use pit stops to pull off great wins all the time, just look at Singapore 2008!!!!

Look, I'd take safety over purity any day and this is not something that should be debated. Now if a SC or VSC are in order, that is a different matter altogether and personally I lean on the VSC solution. But the implication that they used it to help Ferrari in this race as suggested somewhere is just absurd to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 773
Asphalt_World wrote:
I've read some interesting stuff on this forum before, but the attempt to call the Ferrari crash a racing incident, and in one case where it seems Charles is to blame, is simply beyond staggering!


Of course, and like someone else mentioned before, why didn't the Sky pundits have the balls to ask Binotto what he thought CL had done wrong etc. It would have been good journalism because Binotto would have struggled to answer and not been able to present a convincing case against CL.

It just goes to show that all the interviews around the race weekend are just boring cliched PR drivel and none of it really means anything, they are all just being politically correct.

The team radio stuff is real and can be trusted, but very few of the interviews can, they are just boring spiel most of the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4406
F1 Racer wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
I've read some interesting stuff on this forum before, but the attempt to call the Ferrari crash a racing incident, and in one case where it seems Charles is to blame, is simply beyond staggering!


Of course, and like someone else mentioned before, why didn't the Sky pundits have the balls to ask Binotto what he thought CL had done wrong etc. It would have been good journalism because Binotto would have struggled to answer and not been able to present a convincing case against CL.

It just goes to show that all the interviews around the race weekend are just boring cliched PR drivel and none of it really means anything, they are all just being politically correct.

The team radio stuff is real and can be trusted, but very few of the interviews can, they are just boring spiel most of the time.


He was asked but as any decent boss should do, Binotto said he wasn't going to give an answer on TV straight after the race. He has chosen to watch more replays with the drivers and team before discussing it in-house. To do otherwise would have been completely stupid.

Us fans may like a bit of controversy to be discussed, but his job is not to do that.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16533
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So the FIA has apparently explained the need for the SC. Bottas was trying to get the steering wheel back and failed, so he bailed as not to stay on the track for too long. The marshals managed to do it eventually, but the car wouldn't go to neutral so they couldn't take it out of the track without a crane. Crane=SC these days, hence the SC session. Nothing sinister it seems


Yeah, but there's no reason why crane can't equal VSC, particularly in the dry, so there is still no excuse for the SC, therefore it is still sinister when there are other solutions available.

If the comeback is that their hands were tied due to their policies that they have created, then it is the policies that are at fault, meaning the situation is still unnecessary.


Don't shoot the messenger! I agree, it feels a bit of a stretch, but I think that Masi was just ticking boxes here, the policies are at fault. Can't blame him for following the policy though


Then why are the cars being recovered before they line up behind the safety car effectively under VSC conditions anyway? And wouldn't it be Masi's policy?

They are recovered ASAP and SC takes some time to bunch up, so I'm not sure what you mean there. I am not sure if Masi wrote this policy or not. Not sure who is responsible for writing the policies either


That's my point.

The cars are effectively under VSC conditions until the catch the safety car.

In this case (and others this season) the stranded car was cleared before the drivers still in the race had caught the safety car.

Therefore Bottas was cleared under the same conditions as he would have been under the VSC yet we had a full on safety car.

Basically if recovery can start before the cars are actually under full safety car conditions surely that proves it was unnecessary.

As it's the same man that gives the order for the safety car and the OK for the recovery vehicle to go onto the circuit then surely it should raise a lot more questions than are currently being asked about the integrity of those decisions?


Last edited by mikeyg123 on Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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: No registered users 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