[Race] US Grand Prix

[S griffin]

Having seen the pass, it's weird, as others were using run off in passing moves, even if Max's was the most blatant. Frankly the FIA can punish him all they like, but it's there fault for putting asphalt run offs that are so easy to be used in. Not only that, but they also made this season's cars harder to overtake, meaning drivers have to take more risks to get past.

Looks like Lewis title to lose now. Vettel did well to jump him at the start, but it seemed was more occupied with trying to get the car to the end for once. Max, what a drive, he's on a roll. Now it seems it's his team mate that's having the bad luck. Dunno what was up with Bottas, he didn't really look up for it during the race, it's a good job Lewis has such a big lead in the title, but still, he needs to do better next time

Sainz looked very comfortable in the Renault, a potential star in the making if we needed anymore proof. Fred again up there, but proved the switch to Renault engines still justified, with the Honda engine doing it's usual thing. And Hartley did alright in his first race, nothing spectacular, but not many mistakes either. Glad he's got the seat till the end of the season now

And the pre-race, good to see the old American emotion is still alive

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

a little late to the party but a couple of additional thoughts...

-like most, i am in favour of enforcing track limits although i am not a fan of requiring tracks to change their layouts to accommodate this...particularly given this new suggestion from Malaysia that Haas may sue the organizers.

there needs to be a system that doesnt result in damage caused by the track itself. such is the litigious world we live in now.

-F1 is a technology driven sport and between the multiple camera positions and number of staff in race control, most if not all infractions are no doubt recorded and penalties can be issued. in addition to that, there should be a sensor system in place at troublesome corners (provided and monitored by the FIA/FOM and perhaps regulated with something like the ECU).

combined with track side telemetry, like the DRS activation system, any car going off track should experience a loss of power.

for cars that are forced off track, a traditional review from race control can offer out a time penalty to the violator and place restored for the victim.

but even then there is a subjective element and we wont always have the right call but such is sports. the point is that they start moving towards a more elegant and efficient system.

-also i think respect should be given and credit is due towards the Stewards for coming to a decision so quickly. maybe its wasnt the right call (although i think it was), i really appreciated how quickly they made the call and that they got it done in time for the podium.

in years seasons past, the main complaint would have been how we all had to read about the change in results the day after the event.

-i also have no problem with Max's or Horner's comments. they have a right to be upset. again this is nothing new in sports and certainly not a case of 'bringing the sport into disrepute' imo.

I'm also a little late to the party, and you stole my idea! . With all the telemetry and technology, outline the whole track at the white line and when a car sends a signal that they have gone over the line, they are issued a loss in power for a couple tenths of a second to balance it out.

I watched to the checker flag and stopped there as I watched it late last night, so verstappen being penalized is news to me. I didn't see anything wrong with the pass in my half asleep state. Will have to rewind now.

I wont argue whether he deserves a penalty, but I really don't mind the occasional pass when a driver cuts a corner a little in am extreme way, like the pass at Laguna seca. And really, in a series where a car can't follow within a second without it disrupting their performance too much, and needs drs for a lot of its passes, penalizing some wild passes like this one apparently was seems counter productive. Do we want a procession or aggression? (Hehe, I channeled Johnnie Cochran there). Regardless of the differences between using extra space on exit of turns while not passing amd clipping corners when passing, it looks silly to take away one of the rare non-drs passes while allowing all that extra room on corner exits.

Sensors, man, sensors. Then race control can send the signal to cut power to the car for a couple tenths of a second. Imagine the passing opportunities during those moments!

[RWill2073]

Oh, I wanted to mention the prerace. I hated that they had buffer. That act is old. But thw idea of driver introductions, putting them in front of fans more, and putting on more of a "show" is great. Indycar does prerace intros. I think it was a great idea, but hokey execution with buffer and all.

[JHamilton]

I watched the race last night, turned it off immediately after Lewis won and didn't realize any of the issues with Verstappen happened. I'm blown away by that call - That was the pass of the year so far, no doubt about it.

The only thing Formula 1 is consistent about is shooting themselves in the foot. Let's discourage passing and action in a series that desperately needs it! Brilliant! I am no Max fan and I'm sure he'll get fined for it, but he was right - The steward that made that call is an idiot.

If anyone is curious, Liberty Media won't do anything to correct it F1's issues. They'll fire some staff, bring new staff in, release a press release, and nothing happens for 5 years.

[Taxi645]

Ok, my take on Red Bull's strategy in reply to James Allen's racereport:

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/...ery-in-austin/

Verstappen played his part with some excellent overtakes, but the masterstroke from the strategist was to pull Verstappen in on Lap 37 for supersoft tyres.

I rather disagree with the above. I think it was more in line with; too smart for their own good.

It was an interesting move, but in the end rather ineffective. If you look at the histogram a few things are clear:

1 Verstappen was by far the fastest guy on track
2 He was even on a trajectoy to threaten Hamilton for the lead towards the end.
3 He had by far the newest soft tyres on the car.
4 The 2nd stop never gave Verstappen much of a speed advantage, in stead he got stuck behind Vettel.


I think the Red Bull strategists made two mistakes:

1 First, they pitted him one to two laps early at 24. He was still doing very good laptimes. Extending the stint would've accomplishes two things:
A) he could've put Vettel in dirty air and lure him into flat spotting his tyre in a duel
B) his tyres would've been even one to two laps fresher still, making a move on the others easier.

2 Second, they should not have called him in for the second stop or if they did, do it one lap later to have a chance on a undercut on Vettel (there was still some room to close up to Raikkonen). Now he did loose the time of the second stop, but almost got no speed in return.


Till lap 36 Verstappen was gaining on Hamilton about 0.8s per lap with a gap of 11.5s. Theoretically, without having to overtake the others, he would've reached the back of Lewis around lap 51/52 with six to seven lap fresher softs.

Everyone else had been driving in dirty air for considerable time unlike Verstappen who's alternative strategy allowed him to drive in clean air the whole race. Bottas was toast as we saw, Vettel was highly unlikely to finish that stint from lap 16 and wouldn't have had time to catch Verstappen after a 2nd stop and Raikkonen would've been passed around lap 40. So that means 2nd place already in the bag. If I estimated the finish chances for Verstappen on lap 36 without a 2nd stop I would say:

1st place finish: 15%
2nd place finish: 60%
3rd place finish: 20%
4th place or lower finish: 5%


With the 2nd stop, 2nd place would've been very difficult. As said, I think it was clearly a case of being too smart for your own good. Too bad it would've been cool to see Max threaten Hamilton for the lead towards the end having started from 16th. That would've really been some story. Unfortunately Red Bull decided otherwise.


One other thing. With the top 3 teams being so much in a league of their own and the race being an iffy one stopper, alternative strategies as we saw with Max starting on the supersoft make a lot of sense. The gain Verstappen had over the race distance was much bigger than the time he lost by starting further back on the supersofts. Especially on a track where overtaking is reasonably doable like at COTA. You have no threat from behind, you can extend your first stint so you can keep out of traffic after your first stop and you avoid racing in dirty air from one of the other top three cars. To me it makes a whole lot of sense and we clearly saw it's effectivness with the pace of Max.

I wonder if strategists sufficiently consider the effects of dirty air in their strategic decision making.

[Akrapovic]

Max made the pass by completely changing the corner. I can't think of any series that would let you away with that.

If we're not going to penalise things that are entertaining, then that's an issue, as some find accidents entertaining.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

a little late to the party but a couple of additional thoughts...

-like most, i am in favour of enforcing track limits although i am not a fan of requiring tracks to change their layouts to accommodate this...particularly given this new suggestion from Malaysia that Haas may sue the organizers.

there needs to be a system that doesnt result in damage caused by the track itself. such is the litigious world we live in now.

-F1 is a technology driven sport and between the multiple camera positions and number of staff in race control, most if not all infractions are no doubt recorded and penalties can be issued. in addition to that, there should be a sensor system in place at troublesome corners (provided and monitored by the FIA/FOM and perhaps regulated with something like the ECU).

combined with track side telemetry, like the DRS activation system, any car going off track should experience a loss of power.

for cars that are forced off track, a traditional review from race control can offer out a time penalty to the violator and place restored for the victim.

but even then there is a subjective element and we wont always have the right call but such is sports. the point is that they start moving towards a more elegant and efficient system.

-also i think respect should be given and credit is due towards the Stewards for coming to a decision so quickly. maybe its wasnt the right call (although i think it was), i really appreciated how quickly they made the call and that they got it done in time for the podium.

in years seasons past, the main complaint would have been how we all had to read about the change in results the day after the event.

-i also have no problem with Max's or Horner's comments. they have a right to be upset. again this is nothing new in sports and certainly not a case of 'bringing the sport into disrepute' imo.

I thought about track side telemetry/proximity system that alerts race control, if a car exceeds the track limit but a car going off track experiencing a loss of power, I don't think is necessarily a good idea, especially if cars are bunched up.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

I watched the race last night, turned it off immediately after Lewis won and didn't realize any of the issues with Verstappen happened. I'm blown away by that call - That was the pass of the year so far, no doubt about it.

The only thing Formula 1 is consistent about is shooting themselves in the foot. Let's discourage passing and action in a series that desperately needs it! Brilliant! I am no Max fan and I'm sure he'll get fined for it, but he was right - The steward that made that call is an idiot.

If anyone is curious, Liberty Media won't do anything to correct it F1's issues. They'll fire some staff, bring new staff in, release a press release, and nothing happens for 5 years.

Not to flame the fire here... I am curious. I get it is exciting to see a last lap pass, but how do you justify cutting the corner to make a pass? And if there are no track limits at the apex... what does racing look like in the future if there is no track? Nobody who feels the penalty was wrong seems to be able to answer those very practical questions.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

More potential fuel to the fire - it was an exciting, ballsy move for sure. Not legal, but fun to watch. But would we be having this debate if it was lap 5, rather than the final lap?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

More potential fuel to the fire - it was an exciting, ballsy move for sure. Not legal, but fun to watch. But would we be having this debate if it was lap 5, rather than the final lap?

To be honest, probably not. Imagine this being a pass for 15th in the middle of the race by a backmarker driver. Who would have put that on a pedestal to display what is "right" or "needed" in F1? Next to nobody. I almost included this next comment in my last post, but...

F1 fans are so hungry for excitement that many are clearly willing to look the other way if the source of the excitement is... outside the bounds of the rules. A good example of the end justifies the means. For the "rubbin is racin'" and fist fights in pit lane crowd, that might be ok. I sure hope we don't start down that slippery slope. That would not a sport I care to watch.

Also, what I think nobody has commented on is... how close that pass was to being legal. Just a slight bit more to the left (questionable if he could have done that and still missed Kimi) and it could have worked and it truly would have been an epic AND untarnished pass.

Richard

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

More potential fuel to the fire - it was an exciting, ballsy move for sure. Not legal, but fun to watch. But would we be having this debate if it was lap 5, rather than the final lap?

A slightly different debate about Verstappen's recovery from the 5 second penalty he would have served at his pitstop perhaps?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

More potential fuel to the fire - it was an exciting, ballsy move for sure. Not legal, but fun to watch. But would we be having this debate if it was lap 5, rather than the final lap?

i would have to agree...dont think we would be having this debate at all if it happened on lap 5.

i think most, if not all, would agree that if it occurred on lap 5 Max would have had to give the spot back...if anything his team would have told him he needed to give the spot back voluntarily no?

[gert]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i would have to agree...dont think we would be having this debate at all if it happened on lap 5.

i think most, if not all, would agree that if it occurred on lap 5 Max would have had to give the spot back...if anything his team would have told him he needed to give the spot back voluntarily no?

Probably yes, and if we agree that is the most likely outcome if it happened on lap 5, then we also in fact agree that it was right to put Max back behind Verstappen?


Similarly, would we have this fuss if it was not for 3rd place but for 11th or worse? Or if it was - let's say - Ericsson on Magnussen instead of Verstappen on Raikkonen?

[Adam43]

I hope this isn't a suggestion that as fans we aren't consistent.

[Purist]

I could think of a number of ways to view that.

Honestly, though, he's in a Red Bull, if he's starting out back, nobody back there is going to fight him THAT hard for it on Lap 5, so I just don't see that happening with Max.

If it's two mid-fielders or two backmarkers, do we even see it? Does it even get penalized? I brought up the Magnussen/Wehrlein incident earlier. And I can't help but think of the release given following Grosjean's Turn 1, Lap 1 incident at Spa. What I mean is, the officials bringing up that he took out championship contenders; if you're primary concern is proper, consistent enforcement of the rules, wtf, why are you even bringing that up!?

And I mentioned this earlier. Frankly, the corner design is flawed. There just about isn't a corner arc through that whole thing that would even allow two cars to stay side-by-side, and there's no bloody reason for that cut into the arc with that one apex! If you've watched ALMS/IMSA at Mosport, and LMPs sure as hell are downforce cars, too, those smooth-profile, high-speed, long-duration corners are the best places to see spectacular side-by-side running and overtaking.

Yes, if Max had tried to make it around that bite out of the normal flow of the corner, there's more than a fair chance it would have resulted in a crash. In that case, most would just be calling Verstappen an idiot. So, you know, faced with those two options, because for him, thankfully, not trying isn't an option in his mind, I'd cut the corner too.

If it were me, I'd get rid of that one particularly harsh apex, and solve the problem there from now on. Honestly, I'd like to at least slightly reprofile most of the turns at Austin. (And really, with Turns 1, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 20 in there, there's no worry of Austin, at 3.427 miles, becoming as fast as Watkins Glen GP, at 3.4 miles, even if you made several adjustments.)

And enough of "the track is what it is, deal with it" crap. Do you want guys who are NOT in "power cars" to have a realistic possibility of passing, or not? If you want that chance to exist, there have to be places available on the circuits that allow for it. Part of how we've gotten painted into the box we're in with overtaking being what it is, is this insistence on ONE philosophy for overtaking (1,200-meter straight into hairpin model), AND we've taken out, or designed out, the types of corners that would allow for other things to happen. Sheesh!

[gert]

Originally Posted by Purist

Do you want guys who are NOT in "power cars" to have a realistic possibility of passing, or not? If you want that chance to exist, there have to be places available on the circuits that allow for it. Part of how we've gotten painted into the box we're in with overtaking being what it is, is this insistence on ONE philosophy for overtaking (1,200-meter straight into hairpin model), AND we've taken out, or designed out, the types of corners that would allow for other things to happen. Sheesh!

I don't think we should blame the track for what happened.
It wasn't a lack of pssing possibilities that contributed, but a lack of (number of) opportunities: he only got close enough to Raikkonen on the last lap.

If he got there earlier - let's say: 3 laps to go - I'm sure he would have tried elsewhere first, and more likely than not would (eventually) have made a valid pass too.

Originally Posted by Purist

If it's two mid-fielders or two backmarkers, do we even see it? Does it even get penalized?

Not sure if we get to see it.
Would it be penalized? That's not unlikely. Ericsson got penalised when he tried to follow one of the faster cars (I forgot who) past Magnussen and he and Kevin got together.

[Purist]

It's not so much to do with this case specifically, in isolation, but it is a problem, and I see no good reason for the corner to be like that in the first place. If anything, it's like it was designed expressly to screw up any passing attempts happening there at all.

The Sauber driver got a penalty for hitting and spinning the Haas, not for improperly making a successful pass, so not the same thing: "causing a collision", not "leaving the track to gain an advantage".

My earlier model wasn't quite complete; it's "slow corner, 1,200-meter straight, hairpin", which just puts even more onus on having the power and torque.

With Raikkonen in fuel-save mode, and only hitting 304 kph on the back straight on that last lap, and Verstappen hitting 331 kph in the slipstream, it still wasn't enough for Max to get him on the straight or into Turn 12. The Red Bull absolutely NEEDED what must have been a horrid launch by Bottas out of Turn 11, on basically shredded tires, which also meant the Mercedes' braking was shot, to actually get by the noticeably more powerful car. (We didn't get to see Bottas' run into and out of T11 because they were showing replays instead.)

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Not to flame the fire here... I am curious. I get it is exciting to see a last lap pass, but how do you justify cutting the corner to make a pass? And if there are no track limits at the apex... what does racing look like in the future if there is no track? Nobody who feels the penalty was wrong seems to be able to answer those very practical questions.

Richard

Racing drivers will go where there is asphalt. If you don't want them to drive there, don't put asphalt there. Any other method of handling track limits is and always will be futile. It defies human nature.

Until I read this thread, I thought the had suspended the track limits as they have for several recent events. Also, I'm not sure the outcome of Max taking that corner "legally" would have been the same. And I'm a Kimi fan! Let em race!

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

More potential fuel to the fire - it was an exciting, ballsy move for sure. Not legal, but fun to watch. But would we be having this debate if it was lap 5, rather than the final lap?

Or if it weren't Ferrari?

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

F1 fans are so hungry for excitement that many are clearly willing to look the other way if the source of the excitement is... outside the bounds of the rules. A good example of the end justifies the means. For the "rubbin is racin'" and fist fights in pit lane crowd, that might be ok. I sure hope we don't start down that slippery slope. That would not a sport I care to watch.

I hope I didn't insinuate that because that's not what I'd like. Just racing.

On the other end of the spectrum, I don't want racing to be about lines like tennis.

[Purist]

Have to go with JHamilton on human behavior.

Also, to some of the earlier suggestions, NO! ANYTHING that takes control of the car out of the hands of the driver is a BAD IDEA, and dangerous. A car not reacting at all the way the driver expects it to when he applies control inputs is quite likely to have poor results in racing conditions.

Furthermore, there is just WAY too much scope for the appearance of, at least, the manipulation of the race results from Race Control. You can't apply that momentary power cut automatically, because it must be assessed WHY the car went "out of bounds" in the first place. Also, if a driver holds station, or gives a place back, either voluntarily or because instructed to by the team/Race Control, then such intervention is rendered unnecessary. So then, if it isn't automatic, who decides when and where that very brief power reduction will occur? What impact will it have?

That is simply a Pandora's Jar that you DO NOT want to open, period!

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by gert

I don't think we should blame the track for what happened.
It wasn't a lack of pssing possibilities that contributed, but a lack of (number of) opportunities: he only got close enough to Raikkonen on the last lap.

If he got there earlier - let's say: 3 laps to go - I'm sure he would have tried elsewhere first, and more likely than not would (eventually) have made a valid pass too.


Not sure if we get to see it.
Would it be penalized? That's not unlikely. Ericsson got penalised when he tried to follow one of the faster cars (I forgot who) past Magnussen and he and Kevin got together.

If he got there earlier, we would have gotten the usual drs-enabled end of the straightaway pass. I'll take the slightly off track, pass nobody else even tries, much less pulls off, any day.

Originally Posted by Purist

Have to go with JHamilton on human behavior.

Also, to some of the earlier suggestions, NO! ANYTHING that takes control of the car out of the hands of the driver is a BAD IDEA, and dangerous. A car not reacting at all the way the driver expects it to when he applies control inputs is quite likely to have poor results in racing conditions.

Furthermore, there is just WAY too much scope for the appearance of, at least, the manipulation of the race results from Race Control. You can't apply that momentary power cut automatically, because it must be assessed WHY the car went "out of bounds" in the first place. Also, if a driver holds station, or gives a place back, either voluntarily or because instructed to by the team/Race Control, then such intervention is rendered unnecessary. So then, if it isn't automatic, who decides when and where that very brief power reduction will occur? What impact will it have?

That is simply a Pandora's Jar that you DO NOT want to open, period!

Some of those pandoras box questions are easy. Just don't give positions back. The momentary cut in power will take care of that. Apply it at a safe spot, like a straight. Pretty simple to determine if they're pushed off or not. Any other situation results in a momentary loss of power. I mean, don't get me wrong. I just started thinking about this for the first time this morning, so it's not like this is some well thought out idea. But this subjectivity and inconsistency is silly. Especially when applied as it was Sunday.

Having gone back and rewatched it, this was an extremely ticky tack penalty. It's hard to even tell if all four tires were over the line. Amd even if so, it isnt close to as egregious as others, who while not gaining position, were maintaining and not getting passed thanks to going four wheels beyond the lines.

Do we want processions only then? You can't follow within a second, yet max did, made a move that is a rarity in its creativity and aggressiveness and is penalized. Shoulda just settled in and followed him in for a 4th. Or made sure to get drs and make the easy pass. I loved hearing Buxton telling max to not change or be stifled.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Amd even if so, it isnt close to as egregious as others, who while not gaining position, were maintaining and not getting passed thanks to going four wheels beyond the lines.

Exactly A few incidents where drivers went 4 wheels off to defend. Vettel took a bad and tight line into T1 at the first corner and went 4 wheels off to straighten up and get a better exit which allows him to defend from an over-under move by Hamilton. That's equal infraction to Verstappen's pass. Vettel no Penalty. Verstappen Penalty.

Rule application was inconsistent. If that doesn't shake the sport down to it's very foundation, I don't know what does. And I don't understand how Charlie is confused on this subject.
What's the point of racing or spending any money to develop a car if everything can just be manipulated by Charlie and the Stewards on a whim. Whether it's correct or not, choose No Penalties, or All Penalties. But nothing in between.

[Purist]

RW, I checked, Max DID have DRS, both into Turn 1 and Turn 12 on the last lap. So, um, no, there was no "easy pass" to be had, not even WITH that device.

Those things sound easy in theory, but they're NOT in practice. You cut the power on a straight, to give back one spot, but slipstreaming/DRS means it costs two or three. You cut power off of a corner, the guy behind doesn't expect it, or goes the "wrong" way, and rams the leading car up the back. And don't label the thing a "limiter", because somebody WILL put the wrong wire to the wrong thing, and you'll have one hell of a surprise in pit lane. And just generally, it's one more electronic gizmo that can malfunction or cease to function.

You're also ignoring human behavior here, especially those on the more aggressive end of the spectrum, like racing drivers. Additionally, it's not like they're going to have this stuff in the lower tiers; at the more entry levels, there's no way they'll be able to afford systems like this. So drivers won't be coming through the ranks with this anyway. And the the good ones may decide they'd rather actually race, somewhere else, if F1 tried to implement something of the sort.

[Purist]

It's funny, and I don't particularly buy the "can't follow" arguments anymore. A lot of it is the accordion effect at work, where, you have such a slow corner onto the straight that the physical gap opens up massively exiting the corner. Now, when there is a high-speed corner, it's often preceded by a straight that isn't very long, and you don't have much of any braking, so the accordion effect doesn't really help you there, but at those speeds, the time gap isn't actually all that large.

Again, they can follow at Spa, Suzuka, or Interlagos. Even Albert Park is pretty decent. It's because you have those smoother corners with more radiused apexes. The accordion effect is less extreme overall with not so many ultra-slow turns, which means the field doesn't spread out so quickly. If you're right on a guy going into a slow corner, and don't make the pass, you have to give up time in order to avoid hitting him.

Also, these smoother corners are MUCH more apt to allow for multiple lines. Now this IS where the aero wash CAN play a bigger role, because, if you are physically forced by the shape of the turn to run almost the exact identical line to the guy in front, the turbulence is exponentially worse than if you can run even part of a car width to one side or the other through a good portion of the corner.

I'd also say that those smooth-profile, high-speed, long-duration corners are more demanding of the driver, as opposed to a turn where you and everyone else knows you're aiming for the exact same apex point every time, because the shape of the track tells you where you realistically MUST apex that corner.