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

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by djinvicta

None of this discussion ever happens after a Monaco GP

...because Monaco doesn't have 100 metres of run off at every corner, and where there is run off, there is a very definite loss of time to turn your ass around and get going again.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Did they not have issues at Watkins Glen, now that the T1 exit is a car park?

There was an incident at the start of the race, with a couple of cars going off on both sides of the track at T1 but that was about it. Nothing like we're seeing in F1.

[djinvicta]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

...because Monaco doesn't have 100 metres of run off at every corner, and where there is run off, there is a very definite loss of time to turn your ass around and get going again.

Exactly my point. Put a big wall/armco at T1 in Mexico and LH wouldn't be able to do what he did.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by djinvicta

Exactly my point. Put a big wall/armco at T1 in Mexico and LH wouldn't be able to do what he did.

See below...

Originally Posted by Sodemo

...because Monaco doesn't have 100 metres of run off at every corner, and where there is run off, there is a very definite loss of time to turn your ass around and get going again.

So I expected the obvious point being made (djinvicta) was with the edge of the track mostly being metal you can't shortcut, run wide, etc. But you make what I think is the better point. Sure the edge of the track is physically enforced by hard objects, but in reality there IS run off in a number of places. But you just loose massive time and positions to rejoin the track when you use them! Which is a good thing.

Richard

[Sodemo]

Ricciardo and Horner want gravel back...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report...n-track-limits

[TF110]

Originally Posted by djinvicta

Exactly my point. Put a big wall/armco at T1 in Mexico and LH wouldn't be able to do what he did.

Just like Rosberg at Canada when he went straight on and gained an advantage by putting himself out of DRS range from Hamilton. As long as it's not for position, they hardly investigate.

[gert]

Originally Posted by TF110

Just like Rosberg at Canada when he went straight on and gained an advantage by putting himself out of DRS range from Hamilton. As long as it's not for position, they hardly investigate.

You sure that was Canada and Rosberg?
IIRC Hamilton was in front of him the entire race.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by gert

You sure that was Canada and Rosberg?
IIRC Hamilton was in front of him the entire race.

Hamilton ran wide at the first corner and pushed Rosberg off, Rosberg rejoined in tenth. Never referred to the stewards, just like the short cut at Canada by Hamilton was never referred to the stewards, just a decision taken by Whiting on his own again.

[gert]

Originally Posted by wnut

Hamilton ran wide at the first corner and pushed Rosberg off, Rosberg rejoined in tenth.

That's how I remembered it, too.

So TF110 must be talking about another track, another driver or another year?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Here's the start of this year's Canadian GP.

https://youtu.be/-kdKlH8qyOc

[chillibowl]

in an unusual step, Whiting took part in the thurday's drivers press conference. (at about the 15min mark and apologies on the poor quality video...couldnt find a better one)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXuhB9kHI-0

dont necessarily want to rehash the debate and im not sure why F1 chose to bring it up again.

undecided if this was a great moment for transparency in F1 or just a reinforcement of how F1 has lost the plot/too complex?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in an unusual step, Whiting took part in the thurday's drivers press conference. (at about the 15min mark and apologies on the poor quality video...couldnt find a better one)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXuhB9kHI-0

dont necessarily want to rehash the debate and im not sure why F1 chose to bring it up again.

undecided if this was a great moment for transparency in F1 or just a reinforcement of how F1 has lost the plot/too complex?

Thanks Chilli.

Whiting is being somewhat inaccurate in bringing the stewards into the Hamilton "short-cut" ruling, the matter was never referred to the stewards.

Hamilton's short-cut is contained in Whiting's race directors report
here: http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formul...information-19

13.03.08 Race start.

Time Car Turn Incident Action/Comments

13.03 Car No. 44 Turn 2 Missed the apex of the corner. Action: None necessary - No advantage

Mr. Whiting took it upon himself to decide the infraction and the penalty and the matter was not referred to the stewards.
The description is also blatantly incorrect, detailed "as car missed apex of turn 1", car no. 44 in fact, missed the apex of turn one skipped turn 2 entirely and straight lined turn 3.


This whole debacle is wholly and solely on Charlie's head!

The stewards did not get to adjudicate this infraction, and it is evident that their report containing referrals to the stewards and decisions reached do not include Hamilton missing the second corner.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by wnut

No advantage

Mr. Whiting took it upon himself to decide the infraction and the penalty and the matter was not referred to the stewards.

If the observer/post chief/head honcho in that sector reported the off using those words, then the decision is already made on the ground. The RD can decide to overrule, but the question is asked of the post chief if it's not clearly stated in comms.

Even if it wasn't, the appearance of the safety car a few seconds later rendered any advantage irrelevant, so not worth following up.

Move along now, I can feel some folks' blood pressure needs to drop a bit.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Greem

Even if it wasn't, the appearance of the safety car a few seconds later rendered any advantage irrelevant, so not worth following up.

Not sure I agree with that.

Originally Posted by Beryl

Only because he didn't brake for that particular corner. On the approach to T1, Rosberg was closer to Hamilton than he was to Verstappen. Hamilton was also closer to Rosberg than Verstappen was to Vettel when Max cut T1-T3 and later got penalized.

As Beryls screenshot shows, Rosberg was closer to Lewis than Verstappens incident. The only reason Lewis got through the T1-2-3 complex without a fight was because he skipped the corner. The whole point in the switchbacks through 1-2-3 is so that cars on the outside can be smart and pull over/under moves. Lewis completely removed the chance for Rosberg to fight him, by skipping the circuit. That, is a penalty in any other series, for any other driver, on any other track, on any other day.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

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.

Digging up a thread by a few weeks, but Midweek Motorsport talked about this incident and how it comes about. So the TV director does *NOT* have direct access to all of the radios. FOM monitor all the radios and then cut out the bits that they think are TV worthy and send it to the TV director, who then plays it or doesn't play it. The strategy for which radio messages will get selected is often decided well before hand in pre-production meetings too.

MWMs conclusion is that FOM are targeting Sebs radio to try and spice up the show a bit. This sort of radio message is normally not broadcast and dealt with as a fine after the race quietly, and the money is usually donated to whatever road safety charity the FIA is pushing at the given time. There has never been a points or position deduction for radio abuse because it has never been broadcast before, just dealt with quietly. We're now in the situation where FOM can decide on a case by case basis who gets race penalties and who gets financial penalties.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Digging up a thread by a few weeks, but Midweek Motorsport talked about this incident and how it comes about. So the TV director does *NOT* have direct access to all of the radios. FOM monitor all the radios and then cut out the bits that they think are TV worthy and send it to the TV director, who then plays it or doesn't play it. The strategy for which radio messages will get selected is often decided well before hand in pre-production meetings too.

MWMs conclusion is that FOM are targeting Sebs radio to try and spice up the show a bit. This sort of radio message is normally not broadcast and dealt with as a fine after the race quietly, and the money is usually donated to whatever road safety charity the FIA is pushing at the given time. There has never been a points or position deduction for radio abuse because it has never been broadcast before, just dealt with quietly. We're now in the situation where FOM can decide on a case by case basis who gets race penalties and who gets financial penalties.

Thanks for that. I don't think this is a good direction for F1 to go at all. F1's now in a situation, where FOM can now cherry pick radio broadcasts and drivers can be subsequently penalised, because of those broadcasts chosen by FOM. That's nothing but pure manipulation.

If a driver were to lose it, in the heat of the moment during a race and efs and blinds it, the FOM can choose to broadcast that and that broadcast can be used against the driver.