planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:19 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Whose infraction was the worst?
HAMILTON'S 11%  11%  [ 6 ]
ROSBERG'S 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
VERSTAPPEN'S 62%  62%  [ 33 ]
VETTEL'S 23%  23%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 53
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3064
DOLOMITE is running a series of polls on the various racing incidents involving the Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari drivers. To augment to that, I'm curious how people would rank them in order of most severe to least severe:

The incidents are:

HAMILTON running wide at turn 1 at the start.

ROSBERG cutting turn 2 at the start

VERSTAPPEN running wide at turn 1 in his defence against Vettel

VETTEL moving under braking against Riciardo.

If you start your post just with a list of the driver's names in order, and then add your explanation/ justification after it will make it easier to see what people think:

eg

VERSTAPPEN
ROSBERG
HAMILTON
VETTEL

blah blah blah...

Rather than:

VERSTAPPEN
blah blah blah lorem ipsum blah

ROSBERG
blah blah bacon ipsum blah blah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4298
Where is the "Stewards" option?

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 1:40 pm
Posts: 17
Vettel (most dangerous offence)
Hamilton, Verstappen (same offence)
Rosberg (no offence)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:20 am
Posts: 120
VETTEL -> moving under braking, dangerous
HAMILTON -> gaining lasting advantage (no flatspot + P1) resulting in winning the race
VERSTAPPEN -> gaining advantage
ROSBERG -> shouldn't be in this poll


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
I dont understand how can you put Rosberg turn 2 cut amongst the other three incidents... when it is so clear that he was pushed off by Verstappen.

For me both Hamilton and Verstappen are exactly the same, so there should be a poll option for that. Both should have lost one place as punishment (they should've let Rosberg and Vettel past). If there was gravel trap, probably they would have lost much more than one place.


Last edited by nixxxon on Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6973
Location: Belgium
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
DOLOMITE is running a series of polls on the various racing incidents involving the Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari drivers. To augment to that, I'm curious how people would rank them in order of most severe to least severe:

The incidents are:

HAMILTON running wide at turn 1 at the start.

ROSBERG cutting turn 2 at the start

VERSTAPPEN running wide at turn 1 in his defence against Vettel

VETTEL moving under braking against Riciardo.

If you start your post just with a list of the driver's names in order, and then add your explanation/ justification after it will make it easier to see what people think:

eg

VERSTAPPEN
ROSBERG
HAMILTON
VETTEL

blah blah blah...

Rather than:

VERSTAPPEN
blah blah blah lorem ipsum blah

ROSBERG
blah blah bacon ipsum blah blah
You have forgotten one: race control creating the circumstances that allowed the Vettel incident to happen. I think I would place that top of my list.

_________________
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 01, 2016 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9051
I know you're only comparing incidents polled by DOLOMITE, but I'd replace Rosberg being punted off by Verstappen punting Rosberg off.

_________________
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 01, 2016 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3064
nixxxon wrote:
I dont understand how can you put Rosberg turn 2 cut amongst the other three incidents... when it is so clear that he was pushed off by Verstappen.

For me both Hamilton and Verstappen are exactly the same, so there should be a poll option for that. Both should have lost one place as punishment (they should've let Rosberg and Vettel past). If there was gravel trap, probably they would have lost much more than one place.

I agree with your assessment of the Rosberg incident, however there are many people suggesting it should have been punished so even though I don't think it should be seen as an incident, if everyone puts it last it will then prove that point...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21682
Verstappen
Hamilton
Vettel
Rosberg

Now for the blah blah:

I think the only seriously problematic move of the four described above would be Verstappen's. He screwed up under braking and would have lost the place had he not driven over the grass. His actions directly affected the outcome of the race for two other drivers. So I'd say his was by far the standout incident.

I think Hamilton's was similar, but OTOH he would have been less likely to have lost a place IMO. But the risk was still there and the stewards should have been consistent. I don't agree with the first lap argument as I think this is more to do with drivers touching cars than the lead driver ignoring the corner(s) completely.

I still don't consider Vettel did anything wrong. He left plenty of room for Ricciardo to make the corner and it was just good, hard racing to me. If he'd shut the door completely it would have been another story, but he didn't. Non-event.

Rosberg was the victim in his scenario, so doesn't belong in this poll IMO. It should have been Verstappen for pushing him off, like he's done so many times before. I can't see any justification for even blaming Rosberg, let alone punishing him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Posts: 844
Location: Melbourne Australia
Of the 4, Ham was the only one the FIA didn't look at.
That means no teams complained and the stewards didn't see a problem.

Vettel's move under braking was the worst as it had the potential to be an accident.

People might be shocked to know Vettel has now 6 penalty points on his license vs only 4 for Max...
In Mexico Seb got 2 points, Max 1 point.
So gaining a lasting advantage is not as serious as moving under braking.

_________________
I support: Ricciardo
I also like: Perez, Hulk, Sainz, Button and Alonso
I respect: Ham, Vettel and Max


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21682
Randine wrote:
Of the 4, Ham was the only one the FIA didn't look at.
That means no teams complained and the stewards didn't see a problem.

Vettel's move under braking was the worst as it had the potential to be an accident.

People might be shocked to know Vettel has now 6 penalty points on his license vs only 4 for Max...
In Mexico Seb got 2 points, Max 1 point.
So gaining a lasting advantage is not as serious as moving under braking.

I don't think people would be shocked at all. The main reason people are complaining about Max is that he drives dangerously and the FIA don't do anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6973
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Randine wrote:
Of the 4, Ham was the only one the FIA didn't look at.
That means no teams complained and the stewards didn't see a problem.

Vettel's move under braking was the worst as it had the potential to be an accident.

People might be shocked to know Vettel has now 6 penalty points on his license vs only 4 for Max...
In Mexico Seb got 2 points, Max 1 point.
So gaining a lasting advantage is not as serious as moving under braking.

I don't think people would be shocked at all. The main reason people are complaining about Max is that he drives dangerously and the FIA don't do anything.
While Vettel certainly should not have lost his focus, nor his cool head, I think two of his licence points belong on the stewards' card. I sincerely hope the FIA aren't going to wait until we bury another driver.

_________________
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 01, 2016 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12939
Zoue wrote:
Randine wrote:
Of the 4, Ham was the only one the FIA didn't look at.
That means no teams complained and the stewards didn't see a problem.

Vettel's move under braking was the worst as it had the potential to be an accident.

People might be shocked to know Vettel has now 6 penalty points on his license vs only 4 for Max...
In Mexico Seb got 2 points, Max 1 point.
So gaining a lasting advantage is not as serious as moving under braking.

I don't think people would be shocked at all. The main reason people are complaining about Max is that he drives dangerously and the FIA don't do anything.


Yes, while I feel people have been overly harsh on Verstappen. The penalty points system was meant to be dealing with transgressions in racing etiquette. Verstappen should have got penalty points in both Hungary and Spa.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm
Posts: 5401
I've voted for the rlong one. I was't sure if you meant Verstappen's first corner move or the one defending from Vettel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3064
flyboy10 wrote:
I've voted for the rlong one. I was't sure if you meant Verstappen's first corner move or the one defending from Vettel.

Against Vettel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6075
Location: Nebraska, USA
Zoue wrote:
Randine wrote:
Of the 4, Ham was the only one the FIA didn't look at.
That means no teams complained and the stewards didn't see a problem.

Vettel's move under braking was the worst as it had the potential to be an accident.

People might be shocked to know Vettel has now 6 penalty points on his license vs only 4 for Max...
In Mexico Seb got 2 points, Max 1 point.
So gaining a lasting advantage is not as serious as moving under braking.

I don't think people would be shocked at all. The main reason people are complaining about Max is that he drives dangerously and the FIA don't do anything.


+1

Thej highlighted part is exactly the kind of issue that baffles fans... how is it, that Max, who had driven dangerously on multiple occasions have only 4 points vs Vettel's 6. it tends to reinforce the legitimacy of their complaints, does it not?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1672
Location: Miami, Florida
Zoue wrote:
I still don't consider Vettel did anything wrong. He left plenty of room for Ricciardo to make the corner and it was just good, hard racing to me. If he'd shut the door completely it would have been another story, but he didn't. Non-event.


Soooooo This!

To top the entire incident off, Verstappen cut right across Vettel's Nose and Vettel STILL left room for Ricciardo and didn't push Ricciardo off track, but rather, held his line and himself was not going to be bull-rushed off the track simply because he was forced off the optimum line. The only reason Ricciardo had a shot in the dark at catching them was because of his Teammate's behavior. Otherwise Ricciardo would have been seconds away from Vettel, just as he was prior to the incident.

At what point did people start isolating certain portions of a complete incident to justify ill conceived actions from drivers they like?

Verstappen screwed the pooch and took himself off-track without anyone touching him and as such he gained a competitive advantage, AND after his team instructing him to give the place back, not only did he ignore them, but he purposely slowed Vettel so his teammate could catch him and then moves far off the racing line to the put a chop block in making the corner.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3064
Fiki wrote:
You have forgotten one: race control creating the circumstances that allowed the Vettel incident to happen. I think I would place that top of my list.

I've seen people posting this kind of thing all over the place but it simply doesn't wash. Stewards decisions always take several laps to reach a verdict, so it his exactly the same to every other incident. In fact, this one was quicker than normal and they removed Verstappen from the podium, which I haven't seen happen before.

It's like people are expecting that the moment Verstappen didn't concede the place that Charlie Whiting should instantly step out on the track and put Verstappen in the naughty corner. It doesn't happen like that, it never has happened like that. And there is a good reason for that. This forum can't even reach a consensus on the right verdict for some of the penalties after several days of arguing and frame by frame analysis of each incident from multiple angles. Even in a relatively straight forwards case, they have to follow the procedure, and what's more - even if they HAD made an instantaneous decision on Max, instant guilty verdict - guess what? It would have a been a time penalty so he would not have had to have moved over so he still would have held up Vettel like he did so it would have changed nothing.

The speed of the stewards decision had no bearing on Vettel's circumstances, so it can't be used as an excuse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:57 pm
Posts: 246
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I still don't consider Vettel did anything wrong. He left plenty of room for Ricciardo to make the corner and it was just good, hard racing to me. If he'd shut the door completely it would have been another story, but he didn't. Non-event.


Soooooo This!

To top the entire incident off, Verstappen cut right across Vettel's Nose and Vettel STILL left room for Ricciardo and didn't push Ricciardo off track, but rather, held his line and himself was not going to be bull-rushed off the track simply because he was forced off the optimum line. The only reason Ricciardo had a shot in the dark at catching them was because of his Teammate's behavior. Otherwise Ricciardo would have been seconds away from Vettel, just as he was prior to the incident.

At what point did people start isolating certain portions of a complete incident to justify ill conceived actions from drivers they like?

Verstappen screwed the pooch and took himself off-track without anyone touching him and as such he gained a competitive advantage, AND after his team instructing him to give the place back, not only did he ignore them, but he purposely slowed Vettel so his teammate could catch him and then moves far off the racing line to the put a chop block in making the corner.


Totally agree.

The problem is with the inconsistent stewards and how the managed the race. Their decisions could turn more audiences off and imo discourages hard racing .

I hope their will be some action taken against those stewards/Charlie Whiting or whomever was in charge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Posts: 844
Location: Melbourne Australia
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I still don't consider Vettel did anything wrong. He left plenty of room for Ricciardo to make the corner and it was just good, hard racing to me. If he'd shut the door completely it would have been another story, but he didn't. Non-event.


Soooooo This!

To top the entire incident off, Verstappen cut right across Vettel's Nose and Vettel STILL left room for Ricciardo and didn't push Ricciardo off track, but rather, held his line and himself was not going to be bull-rushed off the track simply because he was forced off the optimum line. The only reason Ricciardo had a shot in the dark at catching them was because of his Teammate's behavior. Otherwise Ricciardo would have been seconds away from Vettel, just as he was prior to the incident.

At what point did people start isolating certain portions of a complete incident to justify ill conceived actions from drivers they like?

Verstappen screwed the pooch and took himself off-track without anyone touching him and as such he gained a competitive advantage, AND after his team instructing him to give the place back, not only did he ignore them, but he purposely slowed Vettel so his teammate could catch him and then moves far off the racing line to the put a chop block in making the corner.


The question should be, did Vettel alter his line under braking, and did Ricciardo have to take avoiding action? The answers are yes and yes.
Simple penalty to apply. It doesn't matter if he left enough room. The moving under braking rule doesn't even look into that.

Re Max. Race control didn't instruct Red Bull to give him the place. So while his team said that they think he should give the place up, it wasn't an order. So he was free to race.
Max was on 50 lap old tyres trying to hold up 2 guys that were 1 second (vet) and 2 seconds (ric) a lap quicker than him in clear air. He was just doing his best to hold on.

What is unfortunate is that Vettel is the first to be penalised by the very rule brought in to stop Max's dangerous driving. Had the moving under braking rule been in place since the start of the year Max would not have gotten away with all he has this year.

This new rule (Since Austin) should promote overtaking as a driver now knows they can go for a gap and not have Max or whoever is the lead driver move under braking.
That is good for F1!

_________________
I support: Ricciardo
I also like: Perez, Hulk, Sainz, Button and Alonso
I respect: Ham, Vettel and Max


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21682
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
You have forgotten one: race control creating the circumstances that allowed the Vettel incident to happen. I think I would place that top of my list.

I've seen people posting this kind of thing all over the place but it simply doesn't wash. Stewards decisions always take several laps to reach a verdict, so it his exactly the same to every other incident. In fact, this one was quicker than normal and they removed Verstappen from the podium, which I haven't seen happen before.

It's like people are expecting that the moment Verstappen didn't concede the place that Charlie Whiting should instantly step out on the track and put Verstappen in the naughty corner. It doesn't happen like that, it never has happened like that. And there is a good reason for that. This forum can't even reach a consensus on the right verdict for some of the penalties after several days of arguing and frame by frame analysis of each incident from multiple angles. Even in a relatively straight forwards case, they have to follow the procedure, and what's more - even if they HAD made an instantaneous decision on Max, instant guilty verdict - guess what? It would have a been a time penalty so he would not have had to have moved over so he still would have held up Vettel like he did so it would have changed nothing.

The speed of the stewards decision had no bearing on Vettel's circumstances, so it can't be used as an excuse.

I disagree 100%. Why shouldn't RC be able to make instantaneous decisions in certain circumstances? If a guy goes off track when defending a position, why do they need to analyse brake inputs and steering angles? It's rubbish. There is absolutely no need for RC to procrastinate in situations like these, and I'd go further and say they have a duty to act quickly, as people's races depend on it.

Hamilton's transgression should have been actioned within seconds. So should those of Max and Sainz. These are all straightforward situations that don't need over-complicating. Sure, there are cases (e.g. collisions) where greater analysis is required, but exceeding the track limits or pushing a competitor off aren't ones. A referee doesn't need 57 different camera angles to determine when to give a penalty, so why should this be different?

RC needing time to analyse things is just an excuse. They have a duty to act in a timely fashion and on Sunday they failed in that multiple times. It most certainly did have a bearing on what happened between Max, Seb & Ric and that's RC's responsibility


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2261
VERSTAPPEN
HAMILTON
VETTEL
ROSBERG

Rosberg was pushed off the track so that's why he's last, and it strikes me that if he'd rejoined the track it would have been more dangerous and he'd probably have hit Max, especially since Max doesn't seem to want to give people room and he's not the one trying to win a WDC!

Vettel didn't move under braking as far as I can see, so...

Hamilton did cut the corner, but a) it was the first lap and these things are always let go on the first lap - I don't think it was deliberate as the risks of cutting the grass are not worth it. And b) the safety car neutralised things pretty much and the two cars behind were hardly in a position to overtake. c) Hamilton had the problem that he knew there were 21 cars coming round the corner so I don't see what else he could have done, albeit you could argue that he should have rejoined the track having let everyone else pass, but that was NEVER gonna happen was it?

Verstappen's incident was clear cut, he went off and gained an advantage, not in time, but if he slowed sufficiently to take the corner or if he had rejoined the track and taken the corner he would have lost the place. Vettel seemed to leave room as well unlike in the the first corner with Max and Rosberg.

If there hadn't been a safety car I wonder about Hamilton though... he did gain a lot.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Posts: 844
Location: Melbourne Australia
ALESI wrote:
VERSTAPPEN
HAMILTON
VETTEL
ROSBERG

Rosberg was pushed off the track so that's why he's last, and it strikes me that if he'd rejoined the track it would have been more dangerous and he'd probably have hit Max, especially since Max doesn't seem to want to give people room and he's not the one trying to win a WDC!

Vettel didn't move under braking as far as I can see, so...

Hamilton did cut the corner, but a) it was the first lap and these things are always let go on the first lap - I don't think it was deliberate as the risks of cutting the grass are not worth it. And b) the safety car neutralised things pretty much and the two cars behind were hardly in a position to overtake. c) Hamilton had the problem that he knew there were 21 cars coming round the corner so I don't see what else he could have done, albeit you could argue that he should have rejoined the track having let everyone else pass, but that was NEVER gonna happen was it?

Verstappen's incident was clear cut, he went off and gained an advantage, not in time, but if he slowed sufficiently to take the corner or if he had rejoined the track and taken the corner he would have lost the place. Vettel seemed to leave room as well unlike in the the first corner with Max and Rosberg.

If there hadn't been a safety car I wonder about Hamilton though... he did gain a lot.


Vettel has to be the worst as moving under braking is dangerous.
They interviewed both drivers, got all the telemetry, watched the replays all many hours after the race.
Then ruled he moved under braking.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

_________________
I support: Ricciardo
I also like: Perez, Hulk, Sainz, Button and Alonso
I respect: Ham, Vettel and Max


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1823
Randine wrote:
Of the 4, Ham was the only one the FIA didn't look at.
That means no teams complained and the stewards didn't see a problem.

There were three main reasons to why Hamilton's move (which was every bit as blatant as Verstappen's) wasn't looked at:

1. Rosberg was behind him, if it had been any other driver (from a different team), said team would have complained. Obviously Mercedes aren't going to try to get their own driver penalized.

2. Verstappen pushed Rosberg off, if Max hadn't done this and Nico was right behind Lewis on the exit of Turn 3, he might have been forced to give up the place.

3. The safety car right after the start.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3064
Zoue wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
You have forgotten one: race control creating the circumstances that allowed the Vettel incident to happen. I think I would place that top of my list.

I've seen people posting this kind of thing all over the place but it simply doesn't wash. Stewards decisions always take several laps to reach a verdict, so it his exactly the same to every other incident. In fact, this one was quicker than normal and they removed Verstappen from the podium, which I haven't seen happen before.

It's like people are expecting that the moment Verstappen didn't concede the place that Charlie Whiting should instantly step out on the track and put Verstappen in the naughty corner. It doesn't happen like that, it never has happened like that. And there is a good reason for that. This forum can't even reach a consensus on the right verdict for some of the penalties after several days of arguing and frame by frame analysis of each incident from multiple angles. Even in a relatively straight forwards case, they have to follow the procedure, and what's more - even if they HAD made an instantaneous decision on Max, instant guilty verdict - guess what? It would have a been a time penalty so he would not have had to have moved over so he still would have held up Vettel like he did so it would have changed nothing.

The speed of the stewards decision had no bearing on Vettel's circumstances, so it can't be used as an excuse.

I disagree 100%. Why shouldn't RC be able to make instantaneous decisions in certain circumstances? If a guy goes off track when defending a position, why do they need to analyse brake inputs and steering angles? It's rubbish. There is absolutely no need for RC to procrastinate in situations like these, and I'd go further and say they have a duty to act quickly, as people's races depend on it.

Hamilton's transgression should have been actioned within seconds. So should those of Max and Sainz. These are all straightforward situations that don't need over-complicating. Sure, there are cases (e.g. collisions) where greater analysis is required, but exceeding the track limits or pushing a competitor off aren't ones. A referee doesn't need 57 different camera angles to determine when to give a penalty, so why should this be different?

RC needing time to analyse things is just an excuse. They have a duty to act in a timely fashion and on Sunday they failed in that multiple times. It most certainly did have a bearing on what happened between Max, Seb & Ric and that's RC's responsibility

It's all totally irrelevant. As I said, the speed of the decision had zero impact on what happened. Had they made an instantaneous decision it would have changed nothing. He would have got a five second penalty which would have been applied after the race and would have still held up Vettel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21682
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
You have forgotten one: race control creating the circumstances that allowed the Vettel incident to happen. I think I would place that top of my list.

I've seen people posting this kind of thing all over the place but it simply doesn't wash. Stewards decisions always take several laps to reach a verdict, so it his exactly the same to every other incident. In fact, this one was quicker than normal and they removed Verstappen from the podium, which I haven't seen happen before.

It's like people are expecting that the moment Verstappen didn't concede the place that Charlie Whiting should instantly step out on the track and put Verstappen in the naughty corner. It doesn't happen like that, it never has happened like that. And there is a good reason for that. This forum can't even reach a consensus on the right verdict for some of the penalties after several days of arguing and frame by frame analysis of each incident from multiple angles. Even in a relatively straight forwards case, they have to follow the procedure, and what's more - even if they HAD made an instantaneous decision on Max, instant guilty verdict - guess what? It would have a been a time penalty so he would not have had to have moved over so he still would have held up Vettel like he did so it would have changed nothing.

The speed of the stewards decision had no bearing on Vettel's circumstances, so it can't be used as an excuse.

I disagree 100%. Why shouldn't RC be able to make instantaneous decisions in certain circumstances? If a guy goes off track when defending a position, why do they need to analyse brake inputs and steering angles? It's rubbish. There is absolutely no need for RC to procrastinate in situations like these, and I'd go further and say they have a duty to act quickly, as people's races depend on it.

Hamilton's transgression should have been actioned within seconds. So should those of Max and Sainz. These are all straightforward situations that don't need over-complicating. Sure, there are cases (e.g. collisions) where greater analysis is required, but exceeding the track limits or pushing a competitor off aren't ones. A referee doesn't need 57 different camera angles to determine when to give a penalty, so why should this be different?

RC needing time to analyse things is just an excuse. They have a duty to act in a timely fashion and on Sunday they failed in that multiple times. It most certainly did have a bearing on what happened between Max, Seb & Ric and that's RC's responsibility

It's all totally irrelevant. As I said, the speed of the decision had zero impact on what happened. Had they made an instantaneous decision it would have changed nothing. He would have got a five second penalty which would have been applied after the race and would have still held up Vettel.

It would have changed everything. Max would have had to give the place up, which in turn would have meant that Ric wouldn't have been in a position to challenge Seb at that corner, which again would have meant that Vettel wouldn't have lost his cool and launched his tirade and we wouldn't have had the game of musical podiums that we did. The outcome of the race would have been completely different. It's 100% relevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3064
Zoue wrote:
It would have changed everything. Max would have had to give the place up, which in turn would have meant that Ric wouldn't have been in a position to challenge Seb at that corner, which again would have meant that Vettel wouldn't have lost his cool and launched his tirade and we wouldn't have had the game of musical podiums that we did. The outcome of the race would have been completely different. It's 100% relevant.

No, because the stewards can't instruct a driver to move over, they can only apply a time penalty if they break the rules.

This is the order of events:

1. Max cuts the corner.
2. Red Bull advise Max to give the position up.
3. Max does not give up the position.
4. Race control advise Red Bull to give the position up, to avoid a stewards investigation.
5. Max does not give up the position.
6. Race control refer the incident to the stewards.
7. The stewards rule Max guilty, and he is given a time penalty to be taken at his next pitstop or if he does not stop again at the end of the race. As the race has finished at this point, it is added to his race time.

Had step 7 occurred immediately after step 1, then nothing would have changed. The stewards can't instruct Max to yield the position, they can only apply the time penalty. Nothing would have been different.

Whether you feel that the stewards should be able to do that is a completely different thing. But it was not an option available to them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21682
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It would have changed everything. Max would have had to give the place up, which in turn would have meant that Ric wouldn't have been in a position to challenge Seb at that corner, which again would have meant that Vettel wouldn't have lost his cool and launched his tirade and we wouldn't have had the game of musical podiums that we did. The outcome of the race would have been completely different. It's 100% relevant.

No, because the stewards can't instruct a driver to move over, they can only apply a time penalty if they break the rules.

This is the order of events:

1. Max cuts the corner.
2. Red Bull advise Max to give the position up.
3. Max does not give up the position.
4. Race control advise Red Bull to give the position up, to avoid a stewards investigation.
5. Max does not give up the position.
6. Race control refer the incident to the stewards.
7. The stewards rule Max guilty, and he is given a time penalty to be taken at his next pitstop or if he does not stop again at the end of the race. As the race has finished at this point, it is added to his race time.

Had step 7 occurred immediately after step 1, then nothing would have changed. The stewards can't instruct Max to yield the position, they can only apply the time penalty. Nothing would have been different.

Whether you feel that the stewards should be able to do that is a completely different thing. But it was not an option available to them.

I'm deeply sceptical of this. If drivers can simply ignore an instruction to hand a place back in favour of a 5s penalty at the end pretty much every single one of them would take track advantage and take their chances with the time penalty. Don't agree


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4298
Whose infraction was the worst?

FIA stewards.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:47 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4095
Zoue wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It would have changed everything. Max would have had to give the place up, which in turn would have meant that Ric wouldn't have been in a position to challenge Seb at that corner, which again would have meant that Vettel wouldn't have lost his cool and launched his tirade and we wouldn't have had the game of musical podiums that we did. The outcome of the race would have been completely different. It's 100% relevant.

No, because the stewards can't instruct a driver to move over, they can only apply a time penalty if they break the rules.

This is the order of events:

1. Max cuts the corner.
2. Red Bull advise Max to give the position up.
3. Max does not give up the position.
4. Race control advise Red Bull to give the position up, to avoid a stewards investigation.
5. Max does not give up the position.
6. Race control refer the incident to the stewards.
7. The stewards rule Max guilty, and he is given a time penalty to be taken at his next pitstop or if he does not stop again at the end of the race. As the race has finished at this point, it is added to his race time.

Had step 7 occurred immediately after step 1, then nothing would have changed. The stewards can't instruct Max to yield the position, they can only apply the time penalty. Nothing would have been different.

Whether you feel that the stewards should be able to do that is a completely different thing. But it was not an option available to them.

I'm deeply sceptical of this. If drivers can simply ignore an instruction to hand a place back in favour of a 5s penalty at the end pretty much every single one of them would take track advantage and take their chances with the time penalty. Don't agree


According to Brundle they have a maximum of 3 laps to hand the place back before they face a harsher penalty. If there isn't enough laps left like Sunday then it's a 5s penalty added to the time at the end.

I think that's the rule for a drive through as well so I'm assuming it's a standard time frame to adhere to RC instructions.

I remember Massa cutting the pit entry in Brazil a few years ago taking the max amount of laps to comply but I'm struggling to remember any other examples and I can't recall any for a swap back order though but I usually trust Brundle's word on these kind of things.

(I am a little surprised Seb wouldn't have known that though and expected a reaction like Max's. He always seems very clued up on the rules and any little thing he can use to his advantage like earlier this year with passing cars in the pit lane under the SC.)

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2546
I must be ill informed: I was under the impression that if a driver is instructed to concede a position he is deemed to have unfairly gained / kept he must do so without undue delay. I was also of the opinion that refusing to follow an instruction (such as this) would result in a more severe penalty than 5 seconds.
The above may also be wide of the mark, based upon Alien's post that states that Verstappen was advised (as opposed to instructed) to concede the position to Vettel. Failure to follow advice will not warrant a penalty.
In either case, my opinion is that Verstappen got off rather lightly and the circumstances acted against Vettel who, by most accounts, put in a drive that was worthy of so much more than a net 5th place.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3064
Zoue wrote:
I'm deeply sceptical of this. If drivers can simply ignore an instruction to hand a place back in favour of a 5s penalty at the end pretty much every single one of them would take track advantage and take their chances with the time penalty. Don't agree

The situation in the race had a very specific set of circumstances.

It was very near the end of the race, Max's team mate was immediately behind Vettel, and the car after that was over 30 seconds behind him.

A 30 second penalty is the maximum time penalty the stewards can dish out, and that's usually only for really bad things, it is not going to be given out for simply cutting the chicane. And a driver is certainly not going to be disqualified or given a future grid drop / race ban for it. So Max knew, the worst case scenario should he not concede the place is to get a 30 second time penalty, which would put him in 5th place. But there is a chance that they may decide he didn't gain an advantage.

If he conceded the position, he knew that Red Bull would instruct him to give the position to Ricciardo - and given that Ricciardo had moved over for him earlier in the race and was clearly faster, he couldn't really argue it. So he keeping Vettel between him and Ricciardo meant he didn't have to fight his team over a team order. It was either a certain 5th place if he let Vettel by, or a high probably, but not certain 5th if he held position.

Finally, and there is a rather crucial element to this that many people on here do not seem to understand.

Charlie Whiting and Race Control are not the judges or jury. The stewards are independent of race control. Race Control refer incidents they believe have crossed the line to the stewards for investigation. So the process goes like this:

Max cuts the chicane.

Race Control are made aware of this (either they notice it, or receive a complaint from a team)

If Race Control feel something is wrong, then they will do one of two things:

a) immediately refer it to the stewards for investigation
or
b) if they feel the guilty party can put the matter right, offer advice on how to avoid an investigation/penalty

If the team/driver elect to ignore the advice, then the matter gets passed to the stewards for investigation.

What is important here, is that Max ignoring race control's advice is not breaking the rules. It was advice to avoid an investigation and thus not receive a penalty. So Max's penalty was not for ignoring the advice of Race Control to concede the place, the penalty was for cutting the chicane and gaining an advantage. Had he conceded the place to Vettel there would have been no investigation and no penalty, and effectively, no crime.

In different circumstances, Max would almost certainly have yielded the place, such as if there was a queue of cars behind Ricciardo, as a penalty could have pushed him out of the points, meaning it was a chance of a certain 5th for conceding or a high probability 9th or 10th for not.

All systems get gamed. This happened to be a very particular set of circumstances making it clearly a more optimal strategy to ignore Race Control's advice. However, there are some people on here who seem very angry because their preferred driver was unfortunate from how things unfolded, however there is no one in F1 criticizing the stewards over what happened, or calling for them to be replaced. The race has not provoked any form of discussions in the media about the stewarding system needing an overhaul (which it has done in the past and why we now have a driver steward)

People are unhappy but their criticisms and finger pointing have either zero factual basis. It's like blaming fire department for not catching the person who broke into your house.

We have people on here blaming the stewards for commiting the worst offenses at the race, and - what I originally assumed was a satirical thread - suggesting Charlie Whiting should receive a penalty. But these people have done everything within their powers. Whether their powers should be extended is another question, but they are unable to do what these people are suggesting they want of them.

I get it, you don't like the outcome of the race. It probably is unfair, Vettel certainly drove exceedingly well up until he lost his cool so was definitely deserving of 3rd place. But the stewards can't just award him third place. They are not god who can decide to do whatever they want, they have a very strict set of rules, and a specific set of punishments. Maybe you feel they should be able to do more, but that's a totally different question, start your threads or posts about that.

Just coming out and expressing your anger with ill thought out posts that make no sense and have zero understanding about how things actually work will do nothing other than increase the divide between those who disagree with you, and those who benefit from the position you are advocating and you just end up looking like the crazy person in the park shouting at the ducks in the pond.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Posts: 844
Location: Melbourne Australia
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm deeply sceptical of this. If drivers can simply ignore an instruction to hand a place back in favour of a 5s penalty at the end pretty much every single one of them would take track advantage and take their chances with the time penalty. Don't agree

The situation in the race had a very specific set of circumstances.

It was very near the end of the race, Max's team mate was immediately behind Vettel, and the car after that was over 30 seconds behind him.

A 30 second penalty is the maximum time penalty the stewards can dish out, and that's usually only for really bad things, it is not going to be given out for simply cutting the chicane. And a driver is certainly not going to be disqualified or given a future grid drop / race ban for it. So Max knew, the worst case scenario should he not concede the place is to get a 30 second time penalty, which would put him in 5th place. But there is a chance that they may decide he didn't gain an advantage.

If he conceded the position, he knew that Red Bull would instruct him to give the position to Ricciardo - and given that Ricciardo had moved over for him earlier in the race and was clearly faster, he couldn't really argue it. So he keeping Vettel between him and Ricciardo meant he didn't have to fight his team over a team order. It was either a certain 5th place if he let Vettel by, or a high probably, but not certain 5th if he held position.

Finally, and there is a rather crucial element to this that many people on here do not seem to understand.

Charlie Whiting and Race Control are not the judges or jury. The stewards are independent of race control. Race Control refer incidents they believe have crossed the line to the stewards for investigation. So the process goes like this:

Max cuts the chicane.

Race Control are made aware of this (either they notice it, or receive a complaint from a team)

If Race Control feel something is wrong, then they will do one of two things:

a) immediately refer it to the stewards for investigation
or
b) if they feel the guilty party can put the matter right, offer advice on how to avoid an investigation/penalty

If the team/driver elect to ignore the advice, then the matter gets passed to the stewards for investigation.

What is important here, is that Max ignoring race control's advice is not breaking the rules. It was advice to avoid an investigation and thus not receive a penalty. So Max's penalty was not for ignoring the advice of Race Control to concede the place, the penalty was for cutting the chicane and gaining an advantage. Had he conceded the place to Vettel there would have been no investigation and no penalty, and effectively, no crime.

In different circumstances, Max would almost certainly have yielded the place, such as if there was a queue of cars behind Ricciardo, as a penalty could have pushed him out of the points, meaning it was a chance of a certain 5th for conceding or a high probability 9th or 10th for not.

All systems get gamed. This happened to be a very particular set of circumstances making it clearly a more optimal strategy to ignore Race Control's advice. However, there are some people on here who seem very angry because their preferred driver was unfortunate from how things unfolded, however there is no one in F1 criticizing the stewards over what happened, or calling for them to be replaced. The race has not provoked any form of discussions in the media about the stewarding system needing an overhaul (which it has done in the past and why we now have a driver steward)

People are unhappy but their criticisms and finger pointing have either zero factual basis. It's like blaming fire department for not catching the person who broke into your house.

We have people on here blaming the stewards for commiting the worst offenses at the race, and - what I originally assumed was a satirical thread - suggesting Charlie Whiting should receive a penalty. But these people have done everything within their powers. Whether their powers should be extended is another question, but they are unable to do what these people are suggesting they want of them.

I get it, you don't like the outcome of the race. It probably is unfair, Vettel certainly drove exceedingly well up until he lost his cool so was definitely deserving of 3rd place. But the stewards can't just award him third place. They are not god who can decide to do whatever they want, they have a very strict set of rules, and a specific set of punishments. Maybe you feel they should be able to do more, but that's a totally different question, start your threads or posts about that.

Just coming out and expressing your anger with ill thought out posts that make no sense and have zero understanding about how things actually work will do nothing other than increase the divide between those who disagree with you, and those who benefit from the position you are advocating and you just end up looking like the crazy person in the park shouting at the ducks in the pond.


That is all great information.

However in this case why did race control not inform Red Bull to tell Max to move over?
Instead they told Red Bull with 2 laps to go it was going to be investigated by the stewards.
Max was told to stay put by the team (which wasn't broadcast).

Had too much time past between the move and when Charlie decided to take it further. (Presumably Ferrari were on the phone to him)
How long does Charlie have before he has to refer onto the stewards? (Rather than tell the team to concede a place)

_________________
I support: Ricciardo
I also like: Perez, Hulk, Sainz, Button and Alonso
I respect: Ham, Vettel and Max


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3064
Randine wrote:
That is all great information.

However in this case why did race control not inform Red Bull to tell Max to move over?
Instead they told Red Bull with 2 laps to go it was going to be investigated by the stewards.
Max was told to stay put by the team (which wasn't broadcast).

Had too much time past between the move and when Charlie decided to take it further. (Presumably Ferrari were on the phone to him)
How long does Charlie have before he has to refer onto the stewards? (Rather than tell the team to concede a place)

Initially I had read on James Allen's website that race control had instructed Red Bull to instruct Max to move over, but this was not broadcast, however on another website which published a transcript, this was not included. However, it should be pointed out that there are no official transcripts of radio traffic released, the transcripts we get are compiled independently from FOM/FIA by journalists, and even if there were - if Race Control advised Red Bull and Red Bull figured out they were in a better position not to concede the position (which it turned out) then they wouldn't inform Max over the radio anyway so it wouldn't be in any transcript anyway.

I can quite believe Race Control wouldn't have bothered to tell Red Bull, simply because it was clear Red Bull weren't going to follow the advice as they instructed Max to maintain the position. As a result, rather than inform Red Bull and have the advice ignored and then inform the stewards, it was far quicker for them to immediately initiate the stewards investigation.

This process of events would have benefited Vettel as it would have made the decision quicker.

What really frustrates me in the narrative by some people on this forum in pointing their finger at Charlie/the stewards is their ignorance in that these are two independent bodies and their frustration being that they didn't do stuff they are not permitted to do.


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: Google Adsense [Bot], LKS1 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