[Official] Mexican Grand Prix 2016: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Returning to the track limits problem, we've discussed it many times before, but there are a few possibilities.
1. Something physical at trackside that will ensure a disadvantage to anyone going off the track. No kerbs at all. Then on the outside of the corners a small drop (100mm? 150mm?) and with just a single place where cars can return to the track without going back up the step. And that single place could have a chicane built-in to make them lose more time.
2. Apparently Bernie's suggetion is a 400mm wall at trackside. Not his daftest idea ever.
3. Keep track layouts as they are but enforce a zero tolerance rule on crossing the white line.
4. In any of these cases you have to take account of the difference between drivers who go off on their own account and those who are pushed off. Any driver who doesn't allow a full car's width to someone who goes over track limits would have to suffer a penalty greater than that suffered by his "victim". This unfortunately is not self-policing like 1 and 2 so inevitably throws things back into the hands of the stewards. However, after a few races to get people used to it, I think there would be very few instances where this would happen, so in that sense it would become self-policing.

What about tracks that also host Moto GP? There are no physical trackside obstacles because of the obvious. As for zero tolerance, at lthe US GP, they didn't bother to enforce the track limitation. The reason given was no one driver was gaining an advantage over another.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by bella

have a feeling this is an editorial decision not an increase in stroppy drivers. maybe seb pushed in front of someone from FOM in the toilet queue earlier

honestly, if what vettel said about the race director is so offensive then why the hell did they broadcast it?

If it were a live broadcast, there wouldn't be much they could do about it.

[bella]

they aren't (ever?) broadcast live for that very reason, they bleeped it for the swear

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If it were a live broadcast, there wouldn't be much they could do about it.

Radio calls are delayed and only select ones are broadcast. Somebody made a decision to broadcast that radio call.

That raises an interesting question - did Vettel get penalised because somebody in the TV director office chose to broadcast that message? Would he have gotten a penalty if it wasn't broadcast? Because now we seem to be giving penalties only on what we seen on TV, not what's actually happening in the race.

[alfettafan]

Originally Posted by Tourer

It was clear that Max was effectively backing Seb into Daniel after Max's short cut of that corner - regardless of whether it was intentional or not. I reckon I would have been spitting chips as well in Seb's position. I'm not sure what powers race control have to instruct a driver to let another driver through but it seems to me that such an instruction would have been better for the race than a post race 5 sec penalty for Max.

Whether or not Daniel would have got up to Seb in those circumstances is conjecture and Seb DID do the wrong thing under brakes as per the recent clarifications but I tend to agree with you that the catalyst was Max's actions and the lack of dealing with those actions during the race by race control.

Lots of interesting views here - this one I particularly agree with. On the subject of Vettel's expletive remarks how do we know these are a new thing for him or anyone else - we only get what the TV channel choose to broadcast, don't we ?

On the topic of whether Hamilton should have been given a penalty for his turn 1 misdemeanour then, yes, I think he should have. He gained an advantage, no question, it just so happened that there was then a VSC./SC period which is seen as negating that advantage. However, when there was a similar scenario for a pit infringement at Bathurst recently the redress / penalty was incurred post-safety car period which ensured the penalty was "real". Like someone else has said already I am pretty much done with F1 - the races are dull and the the rules / penalties are applied at random depending on who you are and who you drive for !

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Radio calls are delayed and only select ones are broadcast. Somebody made a decision to broadcast that radio call.

That raises an interesting question - did Vettel get penalised because somebody in the TV director office chose to broadcast that message? Would he have gotten a penalty if it wasn't broadcast? Because now we seem to be giving penalties only on what we seen on TV, not what's actually happening in the race.

Ok, it was a radio call during the race. I completely missed the race and thought Vettel's comments might have been made in a post race interview, hence his demotion from the podium.

That indeed does beg the question.

[Akrapovic]

Even if it was post-race, it is all delayed by 30 seconds to allow selective editing where needed. If he said it live on TV, even in the backroom, does he get a penalty, whilst the Manor driver saying the same thing but in a less public way, get away with it? Interesting box they've opened with this one.

James Hunt wouldn't have gotten a penalty back in his day for this!

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by alfettafan

On the topic of whether Hamilton should have been given a penalty for his turn 1 misdemeanour then, yes, I think he should have. He gained an advantage, no question, it just so happened that there was then a VSC./SC period which is seen as negating that advantage. However, when there was a similar scenario for a pit infringement at Bathurst recently the redress / penalty was incurred post-safety car period which ensured the penalty was "real". Like someone else has said already I am pretty much done with F1 - the races are dull and the the rules / penalties are applied at random depending on who you are and who you drive for !

Indeed. A 5 second penalty at the start or restart would've meant a loss of several positions and the outcome at the sharp end would've been much different.

The American broadcasters (well British and Aussie living and working in USA) were livid with Max but completely complacent regarding Lewis. Granted, at different times, under different circumstances but same move nonetheless, that should've been looked at the same way. It's a cultural issue, it seems and a culture I've become increasingly frustrated with and no longer enjoy viewing. Time for me to move on.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What about tracks that also host Moto GP? There are no physical trackside obstacles because of the obvious. As for zero tolerance, at lthe US GP, they didn't bother to enforce the track limitation. The reason given was no one driver was gaining an advantage over another.

I agree, MotoGP (or indeed, any other bike racing) squashes the Bernie's Wall idea, unless you're going to build them just for the GP and dismantle them afterwards. It wouldn't cost much in the overall scheme of F1 things.

However this is part of the reason I like Option 1. The drop off the edge of the track would be no more harmful to a bike rider than skating along on his arse at 150mph and it could actually function in the same way for a bike meeting. The only downside would be that a rider likely to run slightly off-track would have to stand the bike up and go off straight to avoid being thrown off by the step. I think the virtue of this option is that it is self-policing and requires no action from the stewards, other than to look at situations where one car is barged off by another. And the concept could readily be adapted to almost every corner.

I agree that there was near 100% tolerance in Austin, and at several other GPs this year. But that is a part of what is wrong with the present way of doing things. The first race of zero tolerance would be pretty messy because many drivers would be penalised and they would all be complaining about it. Then when they realised the FIA meant business, they would just shut up and drive on the track.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by marcel82

I don't like the idea of having bollards at a point where someone going 370kph could have a brake failure.

but why not have some sort of penalty markings? like some diagonal red stripes a meter from the track edge, clearly indicating "you can't go there". if you so much as touch them, you get a penalty. no discussion.

You don't need to put red stripes a metre from the track edge. If you do, drivers will try to drive 0.9m over the track edge. There are already white lines at the edge of the track. Use them.

[littleman]

As far as I could see, the first 5 drivers across the line all indulged in some form of high risk maneuver because they were participating in a motor race.

All 5 of them don't believe they did anything wrong, and all 5 of them are probably right but for different reasons.They should have allowed the result to stand and let the drivers sort it out between them. They'll either learn how to race against each other or keep crashing into one another.

The one with the brains will be World Champion. You don't need stewards to intervene, what they choose to do on track will shape their season and profoundly influence how many points they accumulate.

[Mystery]

Originally Posted by alfettafan

On the topic of whether Hamilton should have been given a penalty for his turn 1 misdemeanour then, yes, I think he should have. He gained an advantage, no question, it just so happened that there was then a VSC./SC period which is seen as negating that advantage. However, when there was a similar scenario for a pit infringement at Bathurst recently the redress / penalty was incurred post-safety car period which ensured the penalty was "real". Like someone else has said already I am pretty much done with F1 - the races are dull and the the rules / penalties are applied at random depending on who you are and who you drive for !

HAM missing turn 1 at the start made him vulnerable to a penalty, but the full safety car meant that the Race Director was able to use his discretion (as given to him by the Sporting Regulations) to consider that the advantage taken had been given up, therefore whether you agree or not, the rules allow for this sort of advantage to be forgiven.

Had Verstappen allowed Vettel to pass then he too would almost certainly not have been penalised, as the advantage would have been given back.

Not really sure I can see the similarity in the Bathurst incident, because an in-pit infringement is completely different to a driving one.

[PhilipR]

Tells you a lot about the condition of F1 when we discuss more about penalties, potential penalties and driver radio comments than the actual on track performance of drivers.

What annoyed me most however were the first three corners. Had there only been 1 90 degrees right hander and then a short straight in DRS maybe we would have seen more overtakes. Has such with the chicane it meant that drivers with better speed and traction in turn 1 lost all their advantage in the chicane.

[davec]

OK I have been thinking about this today.

Did Max gain an advantage? Clearly yes!

Did this justify the penalty? Probably....

He had 2 options open to him.

1 Let Vettel through and then probably lose the place to hi team mate.
2 Carry on racing and maybe finish 3rd. Then probably (but not 100%) get a penalty.

Option 1 = 5th Place
Option 2 = 3rd - 5th Place

Would ANYONE give up the place under these circumstances? The rules say that if you leave the track you may be penalised if you gain an advantage but they do not say that you have to give the penalty to yourself. Vettel can shout all he wants but does anyone really believe that he would have let Max back through if the cars were Him/Max/Kimi??? Max is a cocky little kid that is getting under peoples skin but at the end of the day he getting the job done.

Hamilton's lap 1 off was the same crime and he did gain more but his gain was not to stop someone passing him but more that he gained a gap over the field. fortunately for Hamilton the safety car came out and backed the field up so he can argue "once I knew I had a big gap the SC was out so I didn't get a chance to loose the time myself"

[Sodemo]

There should be a stretch of gravel there to stop cutting, mind you I could say the same about a number of tracks on the F1 calendar.

[Number4]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

Tells you a lot about the condition of F1 when we discuss more about penalties, potential penalties and driver radio comments than the actual on track performance of drivers.

I have not read a positive post yet about a race for the whole season. It's one long discussion about track limits and technical rules.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Even if it was post-race, it is all delayed by 30 seconds to allow selective editing where needed. If he said it live on TV, even in the backroom, does he get a penalty, whilst the Manor driver saying the same thing but in a less public way, get away with it? Interesting box they've opened with this one.

James Hunt wouldn't have gotten a penalty back in his day for this!

30 seconds? I didn't know it was delayed by that much. It would seem like someone really wanted to broadcast what Vettel was saying.

[bella]

exactly my point. who's bringing the sport into disrepute, the person deciding to broadcast it, or the person saying it when it's accepted that anything making it to the main broadcast is heavily censored.

[chillibowl]

so following morning thoughts for me.

-while there is no doubt that physical changes can be made to the track to make mistakes more detrimental, thus avoiding the need for penalties, there is also a question for me about how bullet proof some of these cars are.

a lock up like that should have resulted in a flat spot so big that it would have necessitated an extra tire change for LH (a natural penalty for making a mistake). he did complain about suspension vibrations so good for him for keeping his car on the road but to be honest it didnt really seem to slow him down at all so i question the veracity of Merc's claims that there were fears about his suspension.

and the difference, as always, seems to come down to money...a 300mil+ a year budget team is naturally going to build a better stronger car then a 100mill or less budget team. the inequality is too ingrained in the sport's DNA.

so the issue of track limits (based on a good night and conspiratorial sleep) is bleeding into other concerns i have about F1.

-second morning thought, has anyone seen any quotes or interviews from Chase Cary/new owners on their thoughts about track limits?

i suspect they are staying out of this kind of nonsense, but nonetheless, i am curious to know their thoughts on this, the integrity of the stewarding process, the types of budgets they want to see etc.

there is a vacuum of leadership going on at the moment...which i suppose is to be expected given the recent changes in ownership structure.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by bella

exactly my point. who's bringing the sport into disrepute, the person deciding to broadcast it, or the person saying it when it's accepted that anything making it to the main broadcast is heavily censored.

I am kind of surprised they broadcast it. But at the end of the day, its got a few F1 a few more column inches. If the last couple of seasons races have left a lot of fans feeling disinterested, the controversial rude sweary spoilt brat behavior might instead awaken a few fans from their slumber.

Vettel makes a better pantomime villan than Hamilton and Rosberg!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I am kind of surprised they broadcast it. But at the end of the day, its got a few F1 a few more column inches. If the last couple of seasons races have left a lot of fans feeling disinterested, the controversial rude sweary spoilt brat behavior might instead awaken a few fans from their slumber.

Vettel makes a better pantomime villan than Hamilton and Rosberg!

Controversial rude sweary spoilt brat behavior, may attract a few 'fans' but not for the right reason, or attract fans who like motorsport. There are plenty of Premier League matches out there, that 'fans' who like that sort of spoilt brat behaviour, can watch.

[chillibowl]

in fairness, the one bit of consistency they have show this year is including all of SV's rants in the broadcast and they have been entertaining.

personally though i dont think it brings the sport into disrepute.

if anything it brings disrepute to SV and probably hurts his own brand image...which i doubt he cares too much about anyways.

he needs to take lessons from Kimi on how rant properly.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Gravel for genuinely out of control cars but a bollard with designated escape road determining whether

Quick sketch ... Bollard on the point of the Red lines, Yellow approx gravel location.
Attachment 48571
Straight on to the left of the bollard and you have to use the escape road,
Straight on to the right, then either slow down and drive around the gravel or try and get through it.

Because I'm in a mean mood, added penalty between the white lines of the escape road pit limiter must be employed regardless of whether you join it at the white line or cross some grass first and then join it.

I am generally very much in agreement on this type of strategy. For areas that have a large risk for short cut or running wide, create a specific path for re-entry that punishes the driver timewise.

Originally Posted by marcel82

I don't like the idea of having bollards at a point where someone going 370kph could have a brake failure.

but why not have some sort of penalty markings? like some diagonal red stripes a meter from the track edge, clearly indicating "you can't go there". if you so much as touch them, you get a penalty. no discussion.

So clearly any physical item that blocks a specific path should be designed to not cause any type of safety concerns. In the example above, they are not shown in the area where brake failure would take anyone. And while material was not discussed, they seem to occasionally use something like styrofoam placards for this. They are more of a visual reminder than anything meant to stop a car. Off hand, I can't remember where but this has already been done at a few races.

To the entire Hamilton/first turn issue. As I watched the race my wife (not particularly a racing fan) was casually watching and said... "Isn't that cheating?". My initial answer was "They tend to close their eyes to offenses at the first turn that doesn't result in collisions". I think there is plenty of cases in which someone "accidently" runs wide, but at the same time that accident prevents someone else from any type of over take movement. So if you don't want to risk being overtaken, just brake so late as to make it impossible and then run wide and say... "oops, my bad", rejoin the track in the lead and nobody says anything. Can anyone remember a time when anyone has been punished for such a thing (first turn, first lap, circuit shortcut, no collision)? I can't. But i think the solution is to make it self punishing via the predetermined (and slower) re-entry paths. I expect everyone will start magically respecting realistic braking points.

Richard

[JohnMiller]

Originally Posted by davec

Hamilton's lap 1 off was the same crime and he did gain more but his gain was not to stop someone passing him but more that he gained a gap over the field. fortunately for Hamilton the safety car came out and backed the field up so he can argue "once I knew I had a big gap the SC was out so I didn't get a chance to loose the time myself"

it was to stop someone passing. he knew he had a brake issue and had to choose between braking early or normal, and he chose normal to protect his position, thinking he could run over the grass etc. if necessary.

Should have some sort of wall that's not life threatening but breaks the front wing etc. I bet he wouldn't have done it then!

[S griffin]

Hamilton didn't get a penalty because the VSC and SC wiped out any advantage and he didn't gain or lose a place to an overtaking car. With Max, anyone else notice he was having to clean his tyres immediately after going off, therefore going onto the grass meant he lost the advantage he gained?

For Vettel, we all like to see a bit of colour in the sport, but he just seemed to lose the plot this weekend! First with Fred on Friday, then with Max in the race and also the backmarkers

Great race from Ericsson, he deserved a point and it shows he has a place in F1

So if Rosberg wins in Brazil he will be champion, but will he go for the win or just make sure of points?