planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:43 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4459
Can we all just take a moment to remind ourselves of the wonderful moment during the race where Max came on the radio to complain that another driver, Lewis I think, had gone too fast through a yellow flag zone!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You can't make this stuff up.

_________________
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 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 779
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

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.


It's not 'safety vs purity' though, it's choosing to be 'overly safe vs purity', in which case purity should win over being completely anal about safety.

There is nothing wrong with being safe, but it needs to be logical and not just an excuse to do anything with the rules and screw purity just so that you can be too safe and protect against 'freak of nature' type crashes.

Basically as Belgium showed earlier this year in F2, you can still have fatalities as the only true way to be safe is to not go racing at all. It is still possible for a driver to die in F1 from a normal crash if circumstances go unlucky for them, (think Alonso's crash in Australia a few years ago where he could easily have died from it).

But racing is still allowed to happen so clearly there is a point where safety only needs to be protected to a certain level and not be an absolute guarantee, because the racing actually occurring is more important than 100% safety.

The issue is that some of these new SC situations that have come about in recent years are due to the notion of trying to provide this 'perfect' level of safety protection in niche circumstances, when the reality is that there will never be an overall level of perfect safety protection due to the nature of the racing and the fact that bad crashes can still happen under racing conditions.

So purity does not need to be sacrificed to protect against niche scenarios that are ridiculously unlikely to happen.

To explain my point in a more succinct way, I would rather that races are 99.90% safe and pure, than 99.93% safe and impure. That extra 0.03% of safety is not worth it if it makes a mockery of the race and turns it into an alternative form of WWE unnecessarily.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 1560
Asphalt_World wrote:
Can we all just take a moment to remind ourselves of the wonderful moment during the race where Max came on the radio to complain that another driver, Lewis I think, had gone too fast through a yellow flag zone!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You can't make this stuff up.


Yes :lol: :lol: :lol: in the madness of the last 20 laps this was lost a little bit!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 1889
Location: Canada
JN23 wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Can we all just take a moment to remind ourselves of the wonderful moment during the race where Max came on the radio to complain that another driver, Lewis I think, had gone too fast through a yellow flag zone!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You can't make this stuff up.


Yes :lol: :lol: :lol: in the madness of the last 20 laps this was lost a little bit!


I roared with laughter. My wife thought I had gone nuts. Hahaha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7979
I think Hamilton was a little unlucky to get a penalty for that tbh, I'd probably chalk that up as a racing incident.

I think his after race comments may have contributed which is a bit ridiculous tbh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 779
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I think Hamilton was a little unlucky to get a penalty for that tbh, I'd probably chalk that up as a racing incident.

I think his after race comments may have contributed which is a bit ridiculous tbh.


The stewards 'robbed' Vettel of victory in Canada and the crowd were unhappy at the farce and the evil stewards. The stewards felt bad inside.

Then in Austria, the crowd wanted a Max win, so the stewards gave them what they wanted. The stewards were the good guys that day.

Then in Brazil, most people felt one of the stories of the race was that Albon was unfairly robbed of his deserved second place and that Hamilton was the bad guy for hitting Albon. The good guy stewards helped appease the crowd a little bit by doing what they could to make the situation 'right' in the crowds eyes, and that was to penalise Hamilton and drop him back several places.

Yes, I do believe that the stewards are going with the more popular decision these days, rather than being consistent and objective with things.


Last edited by F1 Racer on Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
Tufty wrote:
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...

Like the Mercedes would act like a giant magnet?

But no it wasn't a well thought out post that I made in respect to the posts I was replying to, by natural accident I meant a car losing control on it's own running under a VSC whilst Bottas' car was being recovered by a vehicle, I mean the cars seem to go really slow under 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 8:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
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

Even a crane positioned outside of the barriers?

Also the cars go really slowly under the VSC, so is this the end of the VSC because in terms of safety what's the difference between a crane and the marshalls having to push the car to safety?

_________________
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 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?

_________________
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 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 779
pokerman 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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?


Because it was between teammates, the stewards (wrongly) elected to not get involved as they don't want to add insult to injury. They did not get involved when the Red Bulls crashed into each other last year in Baku for example, or the Haas' cars hitting each other in Britain.

Leclerc was just driving straight ahead as he is entitled. He is not obligated to move when someone else is trying to squeeze him, (this is why I never understand why drivers even try to squeeze their opponent, as the other driver is not obligated to keep on moving over away from their squeeze, so it is just inviting trouble if you are the aggressor making the intiial lateral movement).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4459
pokerman 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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?


The thing is, nearly every time a car passes another, the passing car drives within a very tiny distance of the other car. If the passing car chooses to move across before fully past and they touch, I don't see that as any kind of fault of the car being passed. I see absolutely no blame for Charles here.

_________________
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 9:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 779
Asphalt_World wrote:
pokerman 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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?


The thing is, nearly every time a car passes another, the passing car drives within a very tiny distance of the other car. If the passing car chooses to move across before fully past and they touch, I don't see that as any kind of fault of the car being passed. I see absolutely no blame for Charles here.


Yeah, and this just goes to show that as long as there is any overlap, you are entitled to space right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
F1 Racer wrote:
pokerman 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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?


Because it was between teammates, the stewards (wrongly) elected to not get involved as they don't want to add insult to injury. They did not get involved when the Red Bulls crashed into each other last year in Baku for example, or the Haas' cars hitting each other in Britain.

Leclerc was just driving straight ahead as he is entitled. He is not obligated to move when someone else is trying to squeeze him, (this is why I never understand why drivers even try to squeeze their opponent, as the other driver is not obligated to keep on moving over away from their squeeze, so it is just inviting trouble if you are the aggressor making the intiial lateral movement).

But it was investigated so this thing about it not mattering if it involves teammates is somewhat moot.

_________________
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 9:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
Asphalt_World wrote:
pokerman 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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?


The thing is, nearly every time a car passes another, the passing car drives within a very tiny distance of the other car. If the passing car chooses to move across before fully past and they touch, I don't see that as any kind of fault of the car being passed. I see absolutely no blame for Charles here.

However for some reason the stewards disagree.

_________________
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 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4459
pokerman wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
pokerman 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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?


The thing is, nearly every time a car passes another, the passing car drives within a very tiny distance of the other car. If the passing car chooses to move across before fully past and they touch, I don't see that as any kind of fault of the car being passed. I see absolutely no blame for Charles here.

However for some reason the stewards disagree.


They do indeed.

_________________
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 9:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 779
pokerman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
pokerman 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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?


Because it was between teammates, the stewards (wrongly) elected to not get involved as they don't want to add insult to injury. They did not get involved when the Red Bulls crashed into each other last year in Baku for example, or the Haas' cars hitting each other in Britain.

Leclerc was just driving straight ahead as he is entitled. He is not obligated to move when someone else is trying to squeeze him, (this is why I never understand why drivers even try to squeeze their opponent, as the other driver is not obligated to keep on moving over away from their squeeze, so it is just inviting trouble if you are the aggressor making the intiial lateral movement).

But it was investigated so this thing about it not mattering if it involves teammates is somewhat moot.


No, because an investigation with ''no further action warranted'' does not count, particularly in an incident where one driver was to blame. An investigation with no action* is just for show, pose work if you were.

Please show me an example of the stewards investigating a crash between teammates in the last five years where one driver was punished by the stewards for it?

*Assuming one driver is clearly at fault more than the other, like Vettel was against Webber, Max was against Dan etc. I would say Nico vs Lewis in Spain 2016 was probably a 50:50 so I can see why the stewards wouldn't get involved there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2695
It's completely obvious at this point they don't want to give any .ore penalty points to vettel at this point as has been said, I know that's usually a bit of a tinfoil hat type of comment but I really feel at this it's obvious


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
F1 Racer wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
pokerman 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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?


Because it was between teammates, the stewards (wrongly) elected to not get involved as they don't want to add insult to injury. They did not get involved when the Red Bulls crashed into each other last year in Baku for example, or the Haas' cars hitting each other in Britain.

Leclerc was just driving straight ahead as he is entitled. He is not obligated to move when someone else is trying to squeeze him, (this is why I never understand why drivers even try to squeeze their opponent, as the other driver is not obligated to keep on moving over away from their squeeze, so it is just inviting trouble if you are the aggressor making the intiial lateral movement).

But it was investigated so this thing about it not mattering if it involves teammates is somewhat moot.


No, because an investigation with ''no further action warranted'' does not count, particularly in an incident where one driver was to blame. An investigation with no action* is just for show, pose work if you were.

Please show me an example of the stewards investigating a crash between teammates in the last five years where one driver was punished by the stewards for it?

*Assuming one driver is clearly at fault more than the other, like Vettel was against Webber, Max was against Dan etc. I would say Nico vs Lewis in Spain 2016 was probably a 50:50 so I can see why the stewards wouldn't get involved there.

When Verstappen crashed Ricciardo out I believe in Hungary, nominally I guess what happens is the team tell their drivers to both apportion some blame so they both get away without being penalised even though one driver thinks the other was totally to blame.

Most other incidents I guess they're able to apportion blame just by viewing what happened but with teammates it's strangely not the same, like you say the investigation itself is somewhat of a sham but the fact that there is an investigation means that it's not really alright to crash out your teammate unlike other drivers.

_________________
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 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 779
pokerman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:

Because it was between teammates, the stewards (wrongly) elected to not get involved as they don't want to add insult to injury. They did not get involved when the Red Bulls crashed into each other last year in Baku for example, or the Haas' cars hitting each other in Britain.

Leclerc was just driving straight ahead as he is entitled. He is not obligated to move when someone else is trying to squeeze him, (this is why I never understand why drivers even try to squeeze their opponent, as the other driver is not obligated to keep on moving over away from their squeeze, so it is just inviting trouble if you are the aggressor making the intiial lateral movement).

But it was investigated so this thing about it not mattering if it involves teammates is somewhat moot.


No, because an investigation with ''no further action warranted'' does not count, particularly in an incident where one driver was to blame. An investigation with no action* is just for show, pose work if you were.

Please show me an example of the stewards investigating a crash between teammates in the last five years where one driver was punished by the stewards for it?

*Assuming one driver is clearly at fault more than the other, like Vettel was against Webber, Max was against Dan etc. I would say Nico vs Lewis in Spain 2016 was probably a 50:50 so I can see why the stewards wouldn't get involved there.

When Verstappen crashed Ricciardo out I believe in Hungary, nominally I guess what happens is the team tell their drivers to both apportion some blame so they both get away without being penalised even though one driver thinks the other was totally to blame.

Most other incidents I guess they're able to apportion blame just by viewing what happened but with teammates it's strangely not the same, like you say the investigation itself is somewhat of a sham but the fact that there is an investigation means that it's not really alright to crash out your teammate unlike other drivers.


The teams are just as guilty in these situations too, by not apportioning blame when appropriate even though it is fair to the innocent driver that they should apportion blame. Instead they like the blame to be shared and the team principal trots out standard lines like ''I will need to have a word with the pair of them'' and ''They both need to realise that they have a responsibility towards the team and that when they do something like this they blow a lot of hard work put in by many people back at the factory'' etc. etc.

For example when Max weaved in front of Dan in Baku, it was clearly Max being way too aggressive with his defence and he should have given that position up, but instead he crashed into Dan who was effectively a passenger in the incident. Horner probably knew immediately that it was Max's fault but he straight away got into PR mode, he knew the cameras would be on him so he stormed away from the pit gantry with a scowel on his face and thinking to himself ''I need to perform damage limitation here and get the blame shared across both drivers here, I can't have one of my drivers being overly criticised in the press for this''.

However at least the teams are at liberty to do this if they want, and they will just lose drivers ultimately if they treat them poorly in these situations. The stewards though have no such excuse, they need to take action on all crashes and they shouldn't even look at what teams the involved drivers race for, they should just assume all drivers are racing for separate teams when judging blame with collisions. If the stewards actually did get involved in these teammate clashes, and also started being consistent and objective with their decision making, then it would be fun to see the teams be forced to apportion blame publicly to one driver if only one driver got a penalty from the stewards for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3753
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I think Hamilton was a little unlucky to get a penalty for that tbh, I'd probably chalk that up as a racing incident.

I think his after race comments may have contributed which is a bit ridiculous tbh.

Hamilton and Mercedes offered no defence in the stewards inquiry, so there was no option not to give a penalty, especially with Hamilton saying it was 100% his fault the second he jumped out of the car in the post race interview.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 779
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I think Hamilton was a little unlucky to get a penalty for that tbh, I'd probably chalk that up as a racing incident.

I think his after race comments may have contributed which is a bit ridiculous tbh.

Hamilton and Mercedes offered no defence in the stewards inquiry, so there was no option not to give a penalty, especially with Hamilton saying it was 100% his fault the second he jumped out of the car in the post race interview.


Other than winning either of the final two races of the season, I don't think Mercedes or Hamilton care too much about the minor points paying positions in these two grand prix, with the WDC and WCC sewn up.

I expect that had this been Hamilton and Max crashing in this way, and as a result LH finished first and they had a race win to defend, then Mercedes and LH would indeed have tried to fight this penalty.

But with nothing to gain by trying to fight a penalty just to get a few extra irrelevent points for them this season, they may as well take this one on the chin and show the rest of the world how an F1 driver and team should react to penalties: just be pleasant, mature, hold up your hand and accept them.

That way they can point to their good, sporting conduct at Brazil 2019 if in the future during an earlier part of the season they see another team fight really hard against a penalty, they can say ''this isn't the way for a team and driver to behave, look how we accepted our penalty that time in Brazil, we respect the rules''. For example look how hard Ferrari tried to fight Canada 2019, I think they put an appeal in as much as 10 days after the event, but had the error from Seb just cost them 5th place or something, they wouldn't risk bad PR trying to fight it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8142
mikeyg123 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


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?

Mikey, with all the respect I have for you, what are you on about? I am not arguing with you, I just mentioned on the thread what was the reasoning from the FIA, as I read it from motorsport. I do not understand why you are trying to make a point to me, when I am agreeing above that it was a stretch to get a SC out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8142
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

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.


It's not 'safety vs purity' though, it's choosing to be 'overly safe vs purity', in which case purity should win over being completely anal about safety.

There is nothing wrong with being safe, but it needs to be logical and not just an excuse to do anything with the rules and screw purity just so that you can be too safe and protect against 'freak of nature' type crashes.

Basically as Belgium showed earlier this year in F2, you can still have fatalities as the only true way to be safe is to not go racing at all. It is still possible for a driver to die in F1 from a normal crash if circumstances go unlucky for them, (think Alonso's crash in Australia a few years ago where he could easily have died from it).

But racing is still allowed to happen so clearly there is a point where safety only needs to be protected to a certain level and not be an absolute guarantee, because the racing actually occurring is more important than 100% safety.

The issue is that some of these new SC situations that have come about in recent years are due to the notion of trying to provide this 'perfect' level of safety protection in niche circumstances, when the reality is that there will never be an overall level of perfect safety protection due to the nature of the racing and the fact that bad crashes can still happen under racing conditions.

So purity does not need to be sacrificed to protect against niche scenarios that are ridiculously unlikely to happen.

To explain my point in a more succinct way, I would rather that races are 99.90% safe and pure, than 99.93% safe and impure. That extra 0.03% of safety is not worth it if it makes a mockery of the race and turns it into an alternative form of WWE unnecessarily.

Yes, too much safety sometimes leads to unwanted results, makes people relax too much and reliant on others, etc. All true, but I cannot answer why Masi did this for you. The only reason I can see is that they have to take these decisions very fast, if took the decision to deploy the SC and in the meantime they managed to get the car out of the track, then they may have been too late to stop the SC. Who knows? In reality you never know how an incident is going to unfold, no one expected the Bianchi incident to play out like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8142
Asphalt_World wrote:
Can we all just take a moment to remind ourselves of the wonderful moment during the race where Max came on the radio to complain that another driver, Lewis I think, had gone too fast through a yellow flag zone!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You can't make this stuff up.


I didn't watch the race, only the highlights... They should have opened with this!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16770
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

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?

Mikey, with all the respect I have for you, what are you on about? I am not arguing with you, I just mentioned on the thread what was the reasoning from the FIA, as I read it from motorsport. I do not understand why you are trying to make a point to me, when I am agreeing above that it was a stretch to get a SC out.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to explain why I don't believe their reasoning. Because it doesn't make logical sense.

If the safety car is required why are they recovering cars under conditions that are effectively VSC? Surely if it is safe to recover the stranded vehicle before cars are lined up (The cars travel at VSC speeds before catching the safety car) then it was safe to deal with the situation under the VSC. Because that is effectively what has been done anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8142
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

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?

Mikey, with all the respect I have for you, what are you on about? I am not arguing with you, I just mentioned on the thread what was the reasoning from the FIA, as I read it from motorsport. I do not understand why you are trying to make a point to me, when I am agreeing above that it was a stretch to get a SC out.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to explain why I don't believe their reasoning. Because it doesn't make logical sense.

If the safety car is required why are they recovering cars under conditions that are effectively VSC? Surely if it is safe to recover the stranded vehicle before cars are lined up (The cars travel at VSC speeds before catching the safety car) then it was safe to deal with the situation under the VSC. Because that is effectively what has been done anyway.

All I can think of is that they probably thought it would have taken longer. As in by the time they gave the order for the SC they managed to get the car out, but it was too late to recall it. I can't see another reason


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16770
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
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?

Mikey, with all the respect I have for you, what are you on about? I am not arguing with you, I just mentioned on the thread what was the reasoning from the FIA, as I read it from motorsport. I do not understand why you are trying to make a point to me, when I am agreeing above that it was a stretch to get a SC out.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to explain why I don't believe their reasoning. Because it doesn't make logical sense.

If the safety car is required why are they recovering cars under conditions that are effectively VSC? Surely if it is safe to recover the stranded vehicle before cars are lined up (The cars travel at VSC speeds before catching the safety car) then it was safe to deal with the situation under the VSC. Because that is effectively what has been done anyway.

All I can think of is that they probably thought it would have taken longer. As in by the time they gave the order for the SC they managed to get the car out, but it was too late to recall it. I can't see another reason


Yes, but my point is if it was safe to start recovering Bottas under VSC conditions why was the full safety car called. Surely the safety car should only be used in a situation where a VSC would be to dangerous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 10005
Covalent wrote:
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 :] )

Quote:
Drivers had been told in Friday's drivers' briefing that penalties would be handed down for opening the DRS during any double yellow situation, but Sainz was let off.

"It was actually the main topic on Friday we spoke about," Bottas said after the race. "They said that there would be penalties for that. Obviously, double yellows it means something severe. Pretty bad things have happened in the past with yellow flags so for sure it's not something to play with, the DRS."

After the race it was revealed Sainz was one of eight drivers to have momentarily opened the DRS flap on the rear wing while double yellows were in operation. FIA race director Michael Masi put this down to a force of habit and said all eight drivers had otherwise obeyed the No. 1 rule of double-waved yellows -- slow and be prepared to stop.

"We looked at it, and the overriding factor was double yellow flags is the requirement to slow, and significantly slow, and that's what we looked at with all of them," Masi said on Sunday evening. "All of them complied with that.

https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/2810 ... ium-brazil

He did not slow significantly, nor was he prepared to stop. And they specifically said there'd be penalties for using the DRS.

So not only did Sainz drive too fast, he also used the DRS. I can't understand why that wasn't a slam dunk penalty.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16770
Covalent wrote:
Covalent wrote:
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 :] )

Quote:
Drivers had been told in Friday's drivers' briefing that penalties would be handed down for opening the DRS during any double yellow situation, but Sainz was let off.

"It was actually the main topic on Friday we spoke about," Bottas said after the race. "They said that there would be penalties for that. Obviously, double yellows it means something severe. Pretty bad things have happened in the past with yellow flags so for sure it's not something to play with, the DRS."

After the race it was revealed Sainz was one of eight drivers to have momentarily opened the DRS flap on the rear wing while double yellows were in operation. FIA race director Michael Masi put this down to a force of habit and said all eight drivers had otherwise obeyed the No. 1 rule of double-waved yellows -- slow and be prepared to stop.

"We looked at it, and the overriding factor was double yellow flags is the requirement to slow, and significantly slow, and that's what we looked at with all of them," Masi said on Sunday evening. "All of them complied with that.

https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/2810 ... ium-brazil

He did not slow significantly, nor was he prepared to stop. And they specifically said there'd be penalties for using the DRS.

So not only did Sainz drive too fast, he also used the DRS. I can't understand why that wasn't a slam dunk penalty.


The DRS thing - Where did the yellow flags start? Because it may be that Sainz, or others couldn't see the yellow flags from the start of the DRS zone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2695
Yeah it's a weird one, it seems it should be a slam dunk penalty for all who did it, yet that haven't given them a penalty of provided a real reason as to why they didn't get one. They've said they did slow down but I don't get how, and would love to see timings and telemetry because, frankly, whilst you'd like to think you could just take the stewards decision at face value, we're in a pretty sad state of affairs right now that almost every single stewarding decision is completely questionable. Simply nobody has any confidence in the stewards ability to make rational decisions right now Masi is a total nomad, some of the stuff he says it's laughable, and it leaves me wondering if he has any experience/knowledge of racing what so ever, let alone how he got the job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 2001
So it appears Leclerc turned into Vettel after he was almost past him.

http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/images/2019/11/18/678Screenshot_2019_11_18_.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
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?

Mikey, with all the respect I have for you, what are you on about? I am not arguing with you, I just mentioned on the thread what was the reasoning from the FIA, as I read it from motorsport. I do not understand why you are trying to make a point to me, when I am agreeing above that it was a stretch to get a SC out.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to explain why I don't believe their reasoning. Because it doesn't make logical sense.

If the safety car is required why are they recovering cars under conditions that are effectively VSC? Surely if it is safe to recover the stranded vehicle before cars are lined up (The cars travel at VSC speeds before catching the safety car) then it was safe to deal with the situation under the VSC. Because that is effectively what has been done anyway.

All I can think of is that they probably thought it would have taken longer. As in by the time they gave the order for the SC they managed to get the car out, but it was too late to recall it. I can't see another reason


Yes, but my point is if it was safe to start recovering Bottas under VSC conditions why was the full safety car called. Surely the safety car should only be used in a situation where a VSC would be to dangerous.

Also under VSC the cars are going really slowly, how does a car find it's way to Bottas' car going so slowly?

_________________
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: Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
Covalent wrote:
Covalent wrote:
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 :] )

Quote:
Drivers had been told in Friday's drivers' briefing that penalties would be handed down for opening the DRS during any double yellow situation, but Sainz was let off.

"It was actually the main topic on Friday we spoke about," Bottas said after the race. "They said that there would be penalties for that. Obviously, double yellows it means something severe. Pretty bad things have happened in the past with yellow flags so for sure it's not something to play with, the DRS."

After the race it was revealed Sainz was one of eight drivers to have momentarily opened the DRS flap on the rear wing while double yellows were in operation. FIA race director Michael Masi put this down to a force of habit and said all eight drivers had otherwise obeyed the No. 1 rule of double-waved yellows -- slow and be prepared to stop.

"We looked at it, and the overriding factor was double yellow flags is the requirement to slow, and significantly slow, and that's what we looked at with all of them," Masi said on Sunday evening. "All of them complied with that.

https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/2810 ... ium-brazil

He did not slow significantly, nor was he prepared to stop. And they specifically said there'd be penalties for using the DRS.

So not only did Sainz drive too fast, he also used the DRS. I can't understand why that wasn't a slam dunk penalty.

Welcome to the world of Michael Masi and the bs reasoning.

_________________
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: Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
Rockie wrote:
So it appears Leclerc turned into Vettel after he was almost past him.

http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/images/2019/11/18/678Screenshot_2019_11_18_.jpg

I've just flagged this up myself, since Austria Leclerc's driving has become somewhat reckless to say the least.

_________________
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: Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16770
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Mikey, with all the respect I have for you, what are you on about? I am not arguing with you, I just mentioned on the thread what was the reasoning from the FIA, as I read it from motorsport. I do not understand why you are trying to make a point to me, when I am agreeing above that it was a stretch to get a SC out.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to explain why I don't believe their reasoning. Because it doesn't make logical sense.

If the safety car is required why are they recovering cars under conditions that are effectively VSC? Surely if it is safe to recover the stranded vehicle before cars are lined up (The cars travel at VSC speeds before catching the safety car) then it was safe to deal with the situation under the VSC. Because that is effectively what has been done anyway.

All I can think of is that they probably thought it would have taken longer. As in by the time they gave the order for the SC they managed to get the car out, but it was too late to recall it. I can't see another reason


Yes, but my point is if it was safe to start recovering Bottas under VSC conditions why was the full safety car called. Surely the safety car should only be used in a situation where a VSC would be to dangerous.

Also under VSC the cars are going really slowly, how does a car find it's way to Bottas' car going so slowly?


I don't think it was to dangerous to recover the car under VSC. My point is why are both of these things happening.

1. The car is being recovered under VSC conditions

2. A full safety car is called

Logic would say one of those things should preclude the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7905
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
So it appears Leclerc turned into Vettel after he was almost past him.

http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/images/2019/11/18/678Screenshot_2019_11_18_.jpg

I've just flagged this up myself, since Austria Leclerc's driving has become somewhat reckless to say the least.
I don't follow that reasoning, a screenshot being clearly insufficient to judge this, at least in this case.
https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2019/11/BRAZILIAN_GP__Double_DNF_for_Ferrari_as_Vettel_and_Leclerc_collide.html
Have a look at Leclerc's steering wheel movements, and I think you will agree that Leclerc seems to be fully innocent of the accident that took him out of the race. I don't know whether this is by choice on the part of F1, but for some reason Vettel's steering wheel inputs aren't shown.

For what it's worth, Leclerc's inputs remind me of a remark by Vettel about last year's car, when alongside another. Evidence he wasn't trying to get off the hook?

pokerman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
pokerman 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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?


Because it was between teammates, the stewards (wrongly) elected to not get involved as they don't want to add insult to injury. They did not get involved when the Red Bulls crashed into each other last year in Baku for example, or the Haas' cars hitting each other in Britain.

Leclerc was just driving straight ahead as he is entitled. He is not obligated to move when someone else is trying to squeeze him, (this is why I never understand why drivers even try to squeeze their opponent, as the other driver is not obligated to keep on moving over away from their squeeze, so it is just inviting trouble if you are the aggressor making the intiial lateral movement).

But it was investigated so this thing about it not mattering if it involves teammates is somewhat moot.
I agree, even though it is more than just 'somewhat moot'. That silly moment between the Ferraris had a massive impact on the result of all those eventually in the points, and those who dropped out of them, like Albon. That is sheer nonsense and should be handled according the rules, team-mates or not.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
So it appears Leclerc turned into Vettel after he was almost past him.

http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/images/2019/11/18/678Screenshot_2019_11_18_.jpg

I've just flagged this up myself, since Austria Leclerc's driving has become somewhat reckless to say the least.

He's like Felipe Massa used to be. He is completely unreasonable in his defending at times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to explain why I don't believe their reasoning. Because it doesn't make logical sense.

If the safety car is required why are they recovering cars under conditions that are effectively VSC? Surely if it is safe to recover the stranded vehicle before cars are lined up (The cars travel at VSC speeds before catching the safety car) then it was safe to deal with the situation under the VSC. Because that is effectively what has been done anyway.

All I can think of is that they probably thought it would have taken longer. As in by the time they gave the order for the SC they managed to get the car out, but it was too late to recall it. I can't see another reason


Yes, but my point is if it was safe to start recovering Bottas under VSC conditions why was the full safety car called. Surely the safety car should only be used in a situation where a VSC would be to dangerous.

Also under VSC the cars are going really slowly, how does a car find it's way to Bottas' car going so slowly?


I don't think it was to dangerous to recover the car under VSC. My point is why are both of these things happening.

1. The car is being recovered under VSC conditions

2. A full safety car is called

Logic would say one of those things should preclude the other.

I know I'm just saying I don't see why it was unsafe to recover the car under a VSC and the SC was not needed.

_________________
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: Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
So it appears Leclerc turned into Vettel after he was almost past him.

http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/images/2019/11/18/678Screenshot_2019_11_18_.jpg

I've just flagged this up myself, since Austria Leclerc's driving has become somewhat reckless to say the least.
I don't follow that reasoning, a screenshot being clearly insufficient to judge this, at least in this case.
https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2019/11/BRAZILIAN_GP__Double_DNF_for_Ferrari_as_Vettel_and_Leclerc_collide.html
Have a look at Leclerc's steering wheel movements, and I think you will agree that Leclerc seems to be fully innocent of the accident that took him out of the race. I don't know whether this is by choice on the part of F1, but for some reason Vettel's steering wheel inputs aren't shown.

For what it's worth, Leclerc's inputs remind me of a remark by Vettel about last year's car, when alongside another. Evidence he wasn't trying to get off the hook?

pokerman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
pokerman 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!

Well from the horses mouth, the stewards themselves, Vettel wasn't penalised because they apportioned some blame to Leclerc for not being able to avoid Vettel's car despite the fact that at the time of the collision Leclerc's car was steering away from Vettel's car, make of that what you will.

If they had penalised Vettel then potentially he would have had to drive the first half of next season possibly one incident away from getting a 1 race ban, can you see a Ferrari getting a 1 race ban when potentially he could be in the WDC mix?


Because it was between teammates, the stewards (wrongly) elected to not get involved as they don't want to add insult to injury. They did not get involved when the Red Bulls crashed into each other last year in Baku for example, or the Haas' cars hitting each other in Britain.

Leclerc was just driving straight ahead as he is entitled. He is not obligated to move when someone else is trying to squeeze him, (this is why I never understand why drivers even try to squeeze their opponent, as the other driver is not obligated to keep on moving over away from their squeeze, so it is just inviting trouble if you are the aggressor making the intiial lateral movement).

But it was investigated so this thing about it not mattering if it involves teammates is somewhat moot.
I agree, even though it is more than just 'somewhat moot'. That silly moment between the Ferraris had a massive impact on the result of all those eventually in the points, and those who dropped out of them, like Albon. That is sheer nonsense and should be handled according the rules, team-mates or not.

That's actually better, screenshots can sometimes be deceiving, he seems to get some turbulence as Vettels' car goes past him and his steering wheel is going left and right, then someone takes a screenshot as his steering goes momentarily to the right and that's proof that Leclerc turned towards Vettel, maybe a Vettel supporter?

_________________
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: Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33926
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
So it appears Leclerc turned into Vettel after he was almost past him.

http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/images/2019/11/18/678Screenshot_2019_11_18_.jpg

I've just flagged this up myself, since Austria Leclerc's driving has become somewhat reckless to say the least.

He's like Felipe Massa used to be. He is completely unreasonable in his defending at times.

He's driving to what the rules allow under the stewardship of Masi after what happened in Austria where he was surprised that Verstappen was not penalised given his understanding of what the rules were.

He actually said at the time that now he understood what the new rules were he would drive accordingly, not that I condone what he's doing and I hope he has a few more crashes or anybody else that chooses to drive in such a manner, yet again well done Masi turning a reasonable driver into a mad max warrior.

_________________
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  
 
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