The F1 thread

prowla

stickyfiddle said:

Cols said:

goldtop said:

Cols said:

Literally every former F1 driver who’s offered an opinion has been unanimous - it was a boneheaded decision by the stewards.  Mansell, Mario Andretti, Button, Coulthard, Brundle, Wurz and Webber were all very clear that it was wrong.

Wrong. Here you go:

Then read the stewards' report.

That’s one driver against the opinion of seven.

I’ve had a look at the full steward’s report, it’s quite dry reading.  Reproduced in full for those who can’t be bothered:

Fact: Car 5 left the track, re-joined unsafely and forced another car off track.

Offence: Involved in an incident as defined by Article 38.1 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.

Decision: 5 second time penalty (2 point awarded, 7 points in total for the 12 month period).

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

It’s still a bullshit decision.  The rule says "Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage."

Clearly the intended application of this rule is where a car has spun off, to prevent it from just charging back on into traffic.  If you apply it here, the only way to avoid breaching it would be for Vettel to magically come to a sudden halt before crossing the line back onto the track.  Back on track, he was visibly fighting to avoid a complete loss of control, and slithered his way across the full width of the track to do so.

Did Vettel’s actions impede Hamilton?  Of course they did.  Was it intentional?  Don’t be ridiculous, he was out there is the process of getting the car gathered under control again.  Hamilton getting squeezed was a consequence of that, not a deliberate act.

The man after whom the circuit is named would shake his head in disbelief that races are decided in such a fashion these days.

Completely agree. 

The stewards are using the rule about returning to the track safely while also arguing Seb had finished correcting his "off" and was in control again when he ran wider cutting Ham out. That surely means they can't use that same rule to penalise him. 

Wil Buxton raises another interesting point (after his initial tweet suggesting we all "pack up and go home" if Vettel was penalised was deleted, presumably at FOM's request)




To be clear, if the rules are fair and applied evenly I have no problem with any driver getting penalised for breaking them. It's the seemingly arbitrary application that is the real problem here.

He rejoined the track unsafely, Hamilton went wide to avoid him, otherwise he would've rammed him; he then closed off the gap.

goldtop

I get that people who favour SV/Frerrari or who just want to see lots of on-track overtaking instead of rule-based decisions are going to hate this result. But the facts are:

• SV buckled under pressure
• he rejoined the track in an unsafe manner, when there were safer options
  
• even so, he could have let LH pass and then use the Ferrari's better straight line speed to retake the lead
• or he could have pushed to get a >5s lead and win fair and square
• he did neither
  

The Buxton thing (above) is funny. Desperate wishful thinking. (WB deleted his original tweet made in the heat of the moment, BTW)

goldtop

Cols said:

goldtop said:

Cols said:

Literally every former F1 driver who’s offered an opinion has been unanimous

Wrong. Here you go:

Then read the stewards' report.

That’s one driver against the opinion of seven.

the only way to avoid breaching it would be for Vettel to magically come to a sudden halt before crossing the line back onto the track. 

That's just not true (nor your "literally" claim).

Having collected the initial oversteer, SV could have stayed to the left when rejoining the track, avoiding the kerb and the extra oversteer moment. He had the car back under control but it would have taken more self control. (Which he does sometimes run out of.)

Cols

goldtop said:

Cols said:

goldtop said:

Cols said:

Literally every former F1 driver who’s offered an opinion has been unanimous

Wrong. Here you go:

Then read the stewards' report.

That’s one driver against the opinion of seven.

the only way to avoid breaching it would be for Vettel to magically come to a sudden halt before crossing the line back onto the track. 

That's just not true (nor your "literally" claim).

Having collected the initial oversteer, SV could have stayed to the left when rejoining the track, avoiding the kerb and the extra oversteer moment. He had the car back under control but it would have taken more self control. (Which he does sometimes run out of.)

You found a whole one ex-driver with a different opinion from the rest, so yes - not “literally” every former F1 driver.  Congrats!

So what you believe is that, after clattering across the grass at 100mph and with a car fishtailing along the track Vettel somehow collected the secondary slide, determined precisely where Hamilton was, and moved appropriately to squeeze him... all in less than a second?

I think you’re giving him rather too much credit.

We are watching the same incident, aren’t we?

Garthy

I don’t think we are.

goldtop

Cols said:

You found a whole one ex-driver with a different opinion from the rest, so yes - not “literally” every former F1 driver.  Congrats!

So what you believe is that, after clattering across the grass at 100mph and with a car fishtailing along the track Vettel somehow collected the secondary slide, determined precisely where Hamilton was, and moved appropriately to squeeze him... all in less than a second?

I think you’re giving him rather too much credit.

We are watching the same incident, aren’t we?

Look. You're the one exaggerating, not me. Another F1 driver: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

And it isn't me believing the bit in bold - it's the unanimous conclusion of the only people who had all of the telemetry and camera evidence.And FWIW, SV was at under 60mph when he recovered the original twitch, and, instead of rejoining the track safely, he chose to take the shortest route back to the track and booted it, over the kerb and leading to the subsequent secondary oversteer:

(Next: remind yourself of what SV said when MV did the same to KR.)

prowla

Wot @goldtop sed...

Plus Emanuele Pirro, of course.

Modellista

The steering input thing just muddies the waters more, not less.  So Vettel did indeed rejoin the track safely but then moved to block the overtake - that's now the story?  That doesn't help justify the penalty for rejoining unsafely.

The on-track reality is the mistake wasn't bad enough to let Hamilton through.  So why then do the stewards feel it necessary to inflate the seriousness of the mistake and take away the win from Vettel?  Drivers have to brake to avoid other drivers all the time, that's part of the sport.

Daft decision.

Another similar opinion from a well-respected journalist:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2019-canadian-grand-prix-report?utm_campaign=984958_PRINCESS%20MPH%20-%20100619%20-%20Canada%20report&utm_medium=email&utm_source=emailCampaign&dm_i=4DIP,L3ZY,378Z4S,2GOI9,1

Garthy

He may have got away with it had he not buried the throttle pedal through the bulkhead.

Modellista

Regarding the comment above - “when there were safer options”. What are we running here, a crèche? The safer option is staying in bed and having a cup of tea. Even watching motorsport live is dangerous. Drivers accept huge risks just taking part, let alone fighting for position.  “Penalty culture” is at odds with that reality. 

goldtop

Modellista said:

Regarding the comment above - “when there were safer options”. What are we running here, a crèche?

The safe option was simply to take a shallower line back on to the track, avoiding the kerb and rejoining off the racing line (on the left side of the track). We all know why SV didn't do it.

The experts with all of the telemetry and extra camera footage unanimously decided it was unsafe.

"Creche"?  Like it or not, F1 is a sport with so much money and marketing in it, that the risk of fatalities and serious injuries are no longer part of the thrill. (Remember why Mercedes left Le Mans?) Wurz has probably the best summary I've read on why we are where we are: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48593772

Modellista

Yes, we know why he didn’t let Hamilton past, because he wanted to win the race. Your point?

Modellista

Only a sicko would watch in the hope of a thrill through seeing injuries and death. Nobody’s suggesting that. 

What I am suggesting though, is that driving at high speeds and dicing with other drivers who are determined to screw you so they can prosper, is inherently unsafe. Doing something unsafe in order to win is the very heart of motorsport. 

Garthy

Modellista said:

Only a sicko would watch in the hope of a thrill through seeing injuries and death. Nobody’s suggesting that. 

What I am suggesting though, is that driving at high speeds and dicing with other drivers who are determined to screw you so they can prosper, is inherently unsafe. Doing something unsafe in order to win is the very heart of motorsport. 

No it really isn’t. It has never ever been acceptable to try and run your competitors into a wall. It was no better than some of Schumacher’s most defining moments. 

prowla

Modellista said:

Only a sicko would watch in the hope of a thrill through seeing injuries and death. Nobody’s suggesting that. 

What I am suggesting though, is that driving at high speeds and dicing with other drivers who are determined to screw you so they can prosper, is inherently unsafe. Doing something unsafe in order to win is the very heart of motorsport. 

...within the rules.

Cols

goldtop said:

Modellista said:

Regarding the comment above - “when there were safer options”. What are we running here, a crèche?

The safe option was simply to take a shallower line back on to the track, avoiding the kerb and rejoining off the racing line (on the left side of the track). We all know why SV didn't do it.

I’m fascinated to know how one can “simply take a shallower line back on to the track” while bouncing across the grass with the back end snaking all over the place.

sweepy

Cols said:

goldtop said:

Modellista said:

Regarding the comment above - “when there were safer options”. What are we running here, a crèche?

The safe option was simply to take a shallower line back on to the track, avoiding the kerb and rejoining off the racing line (on the left side of the track). We all know why SV didn't do it.

I’m fascinated to know how one can “simply take a shallower line back on to the track” while bouncing across the grass with the back end snaking all over the place.

It’s the telemetry showing that he floored the throttle to rejoin the track and the steering angle that gave it away to the stewards

TimmyO

Are we still debating this?

Four experts with a shitload of telemetry and extra camera views reached the same decision. Move on

Cols

sweepy said:

Cols said:

goldtop said:

Modellista said:

Regarding the comment above - “when there were safer options”. What are we running here, a crèche?

The safe option was simply to take a shallower line back on to the track, avoiding the kerb and rejoining off the racing line (on the left side of the track). We all know why SV didn't do it.

I’m fascinated to know how one can “simply take a shallower line back on to the track” while bouncing across the grass with the back end snaking all over the place.

It’s the telemetry showing that he floored the throttle to rejoin the track and the steering angle that gave it away to the stewards

I can’t find this telemetry anywhere, or even a reference to it from the stewards.  Do you have a source?

TimmyO

Cols said:

sweepy said:

Cols said:

goldtop said:

Modellista said:

Regarding the comment above - “when there were safer options”. What are we running here, a crèche?

The safe option was simply to take a shallower line back on to the track, avoiding the kerb and rejoining off the racing line (on the left side of the track). We all know why SV didn't do it.

I’m fascinated to know how one can “simply take a shallower line back on to the track” while bouncing across the grass with the back end snaking all over the place.

It’s the telemetry showing that he floored the throttle to rejoin the track and the steering angle that gave it away to the stewards

I can’t find this telemetry anywhere, or even a reference to it from the stewards.  Do you have a source?

The stewards have access to and use the telemetry. I can't prove that to you, you either accept it or you don't. 

Autosport.com reported on what some of that telemetry showed, they didn't cite a source but are a trusted outlet and haven't been challenged over it. 

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/143996/vettel-steering-inputs-key-to-fia-penalty-decision