[Official] Italian Grand Prix 2021: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm using battle as a verb, not noun:

Doctors battled throughout the night to save her life.
...a lone yachtsman returning from his months of battling with the elements.
In Wyoming, firefighters are still battling the two blazes.

but yes, maybe battle is also a bit strong.

combat as a verb

"take action to reduce or prevent (something bad or undesirable)."

Ie hamilton prevented Max from overtaking in combat, thus preventing an undesirable result.

[crmalcolm]

The Stewards' report makes interesting reading, particularly alongside the comments about judging incident vs outcome:

'The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.

Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.

During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left behind the kerb.

The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.

In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.'

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The Stewards' report makes interesting reading, particularly alongside the comments about judging incident vs outcome:

'The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.

Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.

During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left behind the kerb.

The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.

In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.'

Which is why i agree with the stewards. theres nothing in that statment that isnt factually correct.

Again, were talking about 4 experienced stewards with mountains of data, same as Silverstone.

Tbh ive seen both incidents at 60/40....both could have been viewed as racing incidents, but becuase one driver could have avoided the incident more, that driver is predominantly to blame.

[AndrewCherry]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The above is the case for a very large part of any non-DRS inside overtake ever. Should attempting such a much on the inside also be punished or only when you do it on the outside (where the driver is already much more vulnerable)?

Well, no, because the inside generally means "the racing line" in to most corners (not all, but most). Overtaking round the outside of someone can be done, but you need a pretty significant performance differential for it to work (whether inherent in the car, or just bravery/skill). When it doesn't come off, you either need to back out, or accept that if there's an accident it's your fault. And that's not really different to a move on the inside - if you lick the stamp and send it, don't get the braking done, and plow in to the car you're attempting to pass, it's on you.

The difference here is that it's a chicane, outside becomes inside. But for that to ever work, your initial outside line pass has got to be *done* by mid corner - you've got to be ahead by the then, not just a bit alongside. And in this case, as others have pointed out, because of the length and steering lock of an F1, that's almost impossible - this corner is too tight and too narrow for that to be feasible between two drivers of pretty much equal speed.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by AndrewCherry

Well, no, because the inside generally means "the racing line" in to most corners (not all, but most). Overtaking round the outside of someone can be done, but you need a pretty significant performance differential for it to work (whether inherent in the car, or just bravery/skill). When it doesn't come off, you either need to back out, or accept that if there's an accident it's your fault. And that's not really different to a move on the inside - if you lick the stamp and send it, don't get the braking done, and plow in to the car you're attempting to pass, it's on you.

The difference here is that it's a chicane, outside becomes inside. But for that to ever work, your initial outside line pass has got to be *done* by mid corner - you've got to be ahead by the then, not just a bit alongside. And in this case, as others have pointed out, because of the length and steering lock of an F1, that's almost impossible - this corner is too tight and too narrow for that to be feasible between two drivers of pretty much equal speed.

The problem I have with this is that, as said, by not allowing a cars width on the outside the car on the inside can run a wider arc and thus carry more speed end up more forward. So to then say the car outside was not along enough while at the same time the car on the inside has gained ground by being able to carry more speed by not allowing a cars width on the outside to me is a incomplete and undesirable interpretation of the rules and situation.

I don't agree that you can't navigate the first chicane side by side if you both want to, as seen on lap 1. It is too hard though with these cars, you can't really carrymuch more than the minmal speed.

I can understand lewis because if he had left Verstappen sufficient room, Max would've probably squeeuzed him on the exit of T2 and he could not rely on the stewards to penalize that because, in my book, they not nearly do enough to protect the outside driver.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The Stewards' report makes interesting reading, particularly alongside the comments about judging incident vs outcome:

'The Stewards heard from the driver of car 33 (Max Verstappen), the driver of car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and team representatives, reviewed the video evidence and determined that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the collision with Car 44 at Turn 2.

Car 44 was exiting the pits. Car 33 was on the main straight. At the 50m board before Turn 1, Car 44 was significantly ahead of Car 33. Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside Car 44, although at no point in the sequence does Car 33 get any further forward than just behind the front wheel of Car 44.

During the hearing the driver of Car 33 asserted that the cause of the incident was the driver of Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2. The driver of Car 44 asserted that the driver of Car 33 attempted to pass very late and should have given up the corner either by backing off sooner, or by turning left behind the kerb.

The Stewards observed on CCTV footage that the driver of Car 44 was driving an avoiding line, although his position caused Car 33 to go onto the kerb. But further, the Stewards observed that Car 33 was not at all alongside Car 44 until significantly into the entry into Turn 1. In the opinion of the Stewards, this manoeuvre was attempted too late for the driver of Car 33 to have “the right to racing room”. While Car 44 could have steered further from the kerb to avoid the incident, the Stewards determined that his position was reasonable and therefore find that the driver of Car 33 was predominantly to blame for the incident.

In coming to the penalty the Stewards emphasise that they have only considered the incident itself and not the consequences thereof.'

Stewards spot on for a change. IMO. Bottom line for me is that if Lewis moves over in circumstances where Max should have been more cautious, it's game over really for the psychological battle/combat/war* (*delete as you prefer) between them. Lewis already knows from several instances this season that prudence has been left in Max's RBR locker back in the garage....

[Lancsbreaker]

Agree generally with Teretonga, Aysedasi, and Andrew Cherry - and effectively the stewards



Effectively Max has to learn that he cannot force his way through, regardless. He knew fine well that there was a big kerb on the chicane, and should not have gambled that Lewis would (or could) opt to run wide in the exit of the chicane, to avoid what became an inevitable crash.


Now almost certain that Red Bull will take Max's engine change next race so the penalty is almost meaningless anyway. I have little expectation that Max will learn from this experience, so expect further carnage to come......

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The problem I have with this is that, as said, by not allowing a cars width on the outside the car on the inside can run a wider arc and thus carry more speed end up more forward. So to then say the car outside was not along enough while at the same time the car on the inside has gained ground by being able to carry more speed by not allowing a cars width on the outside to me is a incomplete and undesirable interpretation of the rules and situation.

I don't agree that you can't navigate the first chicane side by side if you both want to, as seen on lap 1. It is too hard though with these cars, you can't really carrymuch more than the minmal speed.

I can understand lewis because if he had left Verstappen sufficient room, Max would've probably squeeuzed him on the exit of T2 and he could not rely on the stewards to penalize that because, in my book, they not nearly do enough to protect the outside driver.

I'd suggest reading the stewards reports, accept that they are experts whilst you are not (or you would be a steward perhaps), that they have access to mountains more data than you do, and that in many cases they have actually raced F1 cars (or similar) and know considerably more about it that you do. On the whole the stewards do a great job under lots of pressure. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean you are right.

[davec]

Someone can correct me on this but is this race the most points ever achieved by 1 team in a weekend?

A 1-2 + fastest lap has been done but the additional point for DR on Saturday means they are the most successful 1 weekend team ever in terms of points?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by davec

Someone can correct me on this but is this race the most points ever achieved by 1 team in a weekend?

A 1-2 + fastest lap has been done but the additional point for DR on Saturday means they are the most successful 1 weekend team ever in terms of points?

No - 2014 Abu Dhabi would be the highest (Williams 66pts).

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I don't agree that you can't navigate the first chicane side by side if you both want to, as seen on lap 1. It is too hard though with these cars, you can't really carrymuch more than the minmal speed.

I can understand lewis because if he had left Verstappen sufficient room, Max would've probably squeeuzed him on the exit of T2 and he could not rely on the stewards to penalize that because, in my book, they not nearly do enough to protect the outside driver.

Same can be said for T4 on Lap 1 and Imola can it not? Max didnt give racing room to Lewis there....

I think this boils down to racing respect. If Max wants room, he also needs to return the same courtesy.

I very much suspect Lewis has got fed up of being the sensible one in these instances and is no longer willing to give room until its given back. By Horners own admission, there would have been more clashes this year if Lewis hadnt jumped out of the way. Max has to learn that he cant just expect others to do that....but were not talking about a rookie here are we.

I think Max is a fantastic talent, but he was always relied on others being compliant in wheel to wheel racing...Lewis has nothing to lose, and i agree with others that this is as much a phsycological game now with both drivers and cars so close.

[davec]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

No - 2014 Abu Dhabi would be the highest (Williams 66pts).

Yes, of course! I thought I was being clever but forgot that one!

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by JamesH

I'd suggest reading the stewards reports, accept that they are experts whilst you are not (or you would be a steward perhaps), that they have access to mountains more data than you do, and that in many cases they have actually raced F1 cars (or similar) and know considerably more about it that you do. On the whole the stewards do a great job under lots of pressure. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean you are right.

The problem is there is rules (which the drivers can know before tangling) and their is the interpretation.

The whole wheel to wheel combat section of the rules has so much grey area that their is too much change of randomness and it does not really promote fair racing.

Even many decades long motorsport experts were expecting a racing incident of perhaps Hamilton slightly more to blame. Than the outcome comes as a complete surprise. How are drivers supposed to know beforehand how to behave in a split second if even after quite a lot of reflection the actual outcome is quite surprise?

I think this thing will keep happening, because the wheel to wheel combat rules have way too much grey area. If you want drivers to be able to race according to the rules and having to decide in a split second, the rules need to be clear and not depending on what afterwards is one of the many possible interpretations of the rules and the situation. I'm quite sure that the next collection of stewards just as experienced could've called it a racing incident based on the same situation but a different interpretation.

So it's not about being right, but for me about 1) giving drivers a clear set of rules how to engage in combat and 2) better protecting the guy on the outside to facility multiple corner wheel to wheel racing.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Same can be said for T4 on Lap 1 and Imola can it not? Max didnt give racing room to Lewis there....

I think this boils down to racing respect. If Max wants room, he also needs to return the same courtesy.

Very much agree, although I would say (well actually I did say it) lap 1 T4 and Barcelona.
I would be in favour for handing out penalties for that and never said otherwise. Imola is a difficult one, but let's just ignore that one for a moment.

So this is not a Max vs. Lewis thing. For me it's a leaving racing room thing to facilitate wheel to wheel racing and the rules and implementation of them not robust enough to protect the guy on the outside.

I very much suspect Lewis has got fed up of being the sensible one in these instances and is no longer willing to give room until its given back. By Horners own admission, there would have been more clashes this year if Lewis hadnt jumped out of the way. Max has to learn that he cant just expect others to do that....but were not talking about a rookie here are we.

I think Max is a fantastic talent, but he was always relied on others being compliant in wheel to wheel racing...Lewis has nothing to lose, and i agree with others that this is as much a phsycological game now with both drivers and cars so close.

Lewis and Max are two of the same kind in that regard (looking over Lewis his whole career) and because the rules are too vague there is not a robust enough restraint for them to back down.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Very much agree, although I would say (well actually I did say it) lap 1 T4 and Barcelona.
I would be in favour for handing out penalties for that and never said otherwise. Imola is a difficult one, but let's just ignore that one for a moment.

So this is not a Max vs. Lewis thing. For me it's a leaving racing room thing to facilitate wheel to wheel racing and the rules and implementation of them not robust enough to protect the guy on the outside.




Lewis and Max are two of the same kind in that regard (looking over Lewis his whole career) and because the rules are too vague there is not a robust enough restraint for them to back down.

Cant disagree with a thing youve said.

I find it interesting that essentially we are starting to see the younger version of Lewis coming out a bit now, having to stand his ground with Max.

Think he knows that in recent times that he can cede position to fight for another day, but that doesnt work with max, so the only way is to stand his ground.

Im tipping Norris for the Championship at this rate!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The whole wheel to wheel combat section of the rules has so much grey area that their is too much change of randomness and it does not really promote fair racing.

Because it is a sport, there has to be a level of grey area. Otherwise, that means the sport is so tightly regulated that there is no intrigue to the outcome.

What I mean is, there are certain parts of a sport where the outcome of an event can be defined as a definitive instance. These would be cases where if the same situation was reviewed a thousand times, the outcome would always be the same regardless of who made the decision. Examples of this are line calls where a ball is involved, or the total number of people allowed on a pitch.
For F1, examples of this are things such as speed limits in the pit lane, or movement before the lights go out.

Then there are the sporting contest, in which the decision is based on whether something is 'sporting' or 'fair'. Every person will have a differing opinion on where the line is drawn, and the regulations set up a framework within which the referees, umpires or stewards of a sport make their decisions. If there was no grey area, there would be no need for any form of official to adjudicate on decisions.

The fact that F1 is a sport with competitors means that there is a near-infinite amount of possibilities - and no set of regulations will cover every possible eventuality. That is why you can look for precedent, and similar incidents in the past, but no two incidents are the same.

Lap 1 T4 and Barcelona may be similar, but they are different. When we reach the point that we expect all stewards to reach the same decision with every single incident, then we are saying that all of the data could be fed into a computer, through an algorithm, and the outcome would be identical every time. If we reach the point that we can write such an algorithm, then we have reached a set of regulations with no grey areas. Until such time, we need stewards to interpret these grey areas for the sport.

Even in judging the incidents between Ham and Ver at Silverstone and Monza, the resultant positions of the driver handed a penalty were different. People have argued that 10 seconds was not a justifiable penalty, because Hamilton was able to make up the deficit. People would argue that 3 place penalty is insufficient, because either Ver could make up the places, or he will take an engine penalty anyway. So when there is grey area over what an appropriate penalty is, how can we expect all grey areas to be removed over whether an incident is worthy of penalty?


To put across an example of why removing grey area is difficult:
'For me it's a leaving racing room thing to facilitate wheel to wheel racing'

1 - what is 'racing room'. If you are taking the need to facilitate wheel to wheel racing, then it could be presented as always needing to leave a car's width.
2 - If you have to leave a car's width, is that on the inside, outside or both?
3 - When do you have to leave that width? When someone is alongside - fully, partially, majority of car length?
4 - How far into the braking zone does a car need to be alongside before they are entitled to 'racing room'?
5 - Do you need to leave racing room before or after an apex?

The list continues....

Is this racing room:

[steve_r]

We do not know what was going on inside Verstappen's head at the time, but judging from the team radio he was pretty sweary and angry due to his botched pitstop. I do wonder if there is an element of red mist in there.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I do wonder if there is an element of red mist in there.

His “That's what you get when you don't leave the space“ radio could also be interpreted as a ‘you asked for it’ message. His body language as he walked off was similar. Dunno. Easy to read too much into this stuff. I’m not psychic.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Cant disagree with a thing youve said.

I find it interesting that essentially we are starting to see the younger version of Lewis coming out a bit now, having to stand his ground with Max.

Think he knows that in recent times that he can cede position to fight for another day, but that doesnt work with max, so the only way is to stand his ground.

Im tipping Norris for the Championship at this rate!

Yes, if you are the stronger car/driver package you can afford to take a finish and a decent bag of point rather than the maximum points. Max and Lewis are so close that each race is critical.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Because it is a sport, there has to be a level of grey area. Otherwise, that means the sport is so tightly regulated that there is no intrigue to the outcome.

What I mean is, there are certain parts of a sport where the outcome of an event can be defined as a definitive instance. These would be cases where if the same situation was reviewed a thousand times, the outcome would always be the same regardless of who made the decision. Examples of this are line calls where a ball is involved, or the total number of people allowed on a pitch.
For F1, examples of this are things such as speed limits in the pit lane, or movement before the lights go out.

Then there are the sporting contest, in which the decision is based on whether something is 'sporting' or 'fair'. Every person will have a differing opinion on where the line is drawn, and the regulations set up a framework within which the referees, umpires or stewards of a sport make their decisions. If there was no grey area, there would be no need for any form of official to adjudicate on decisions.

The fact that F1 is a sport with competitors means that there is a near-infinite amount of possibilities - and no set of regulations will cover every possible eventuality. That is why you can look for precedent, and similar incidents in the past, but no two incidents are the same.

Lap 1 T4 and Barcelona may be similar, but they are different. When we reach the point that we expect all stewards to reach the same decision with every single incident, then we are saying that all of the data could be fed into a computer, through an algorithm, and the outcome would be identical every time. If we reach the point that we can write such an algorithm, then we have reached a set of regulations with no grey areas. Until such time, we need stewards to interpret these grey areas for the sport.

Even in judging the incidents between Ham and Ver at Silverstone and Monza, the resultant positions of the driver handed a penalty were different. People have argued that 10 seconds was not a justifiable penalty, because Hamilton was able to make up the deficit. People would argue that 3 place penalty is insufficient, because either Ver could make up the places, or he will take an engine penalty anyway. So when there is grey area over what an appropriate penalty is, how can we expect all grey areas to be removed over whether an incident is worthy of penalty?


To put across an example of why removing grey area is difficult:
'For me it's a leaving racing room thing to facilitate wheel to wheel racing'

1 - what is 'racing room'. If you are taking the need to facilitate wheel to wheel racing, then it could be presented as always needing to leave a car's width.
2 - If you have to leave a car's width, is that on the inside, outside or both?
3 - When do you have to leave that width? When someone is alongside - fully, partially, majority of car length?
4 - How far into the braking zone does a car need to be alongside before they are entitled to 'racing room'?
5 - Do you need to leave racing room before or after an apex?

The list continues....

Is this racing room:

My personal preference would be this one:

"always give another driver racing room if any part of their car is next to yours at any point of the track". It allows better wheel to wheel racing and is much easier to understand for stewards, drivers and fans.


The guy on the inside always has the advantage because of two reasons:
1 The car on the inside has the centrifugal force on his side.
2 The car on the inside can gain speed by not leaving enough room (because he can carry more speed at a wider arch).

If you want more wheel to wheel racing, then given the above advantage of the inside car, more support must be giving for racing room must be given to the outside guy.

Apart from that, also Hamilton is saying that more clarity is needed:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/h...edent/6666959/

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

"always give another driver racing room if any part of their car is next to yours at any point of the track". It allows better wheel to wheel racing and is much easier to understand for stewards, drivers and fans.

Wouldn't that just encourage crazy never-gonna-stick moves because the other guy will always have to yield?

[Sodemo]

I can appreciate not all drivers will have the same mentality as Max, but he is a product of "modern F1". A sport now where the drivers are fawned over, protected and offered punishment-free racing due to extensive tarmac runoffs. I am sure if it were 40 years ago, drivers would never be so wreckless. I think the FIA needs to have a think about what drivers are being tought from a young age because when they get to F1 they are on the world stage and young drivers look up to them.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I can appreciate not all drivers will have the same mentality as Max, but he is a product of "modern F1". A sport now where the drivers are fawned over, protected and offered punishment-free racing due to extensive tarmac runoffs. I am sure if it were 40 years ago, drivers would never be so wreckless.

Reckless sums it up I think. The first time I saw it, I thought why didn't MV back off, it was clear that there was not going to be room for both cars to get round from some distance away, but I suspect he thought he would just barge LH out of the way and sod the consequences. He deserved the penalty. I've done the same thing karting. I deserved the penalty too.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Wouldn't that just encourage crazy never-gonna-stick moves because the other guy will always have to yield?

Well it works both ways. It's not about yielding but about going around the corner side by side.

More emphases on positioning your car the right way before the corner and trying to put the opponent in a worse position.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I can appreciate not all drivers will have the same mentality as Max, but he is a product of "modern F1". A sport now where the drivers are fawned over, protected and offered punishment-free racing due to extensive tarmac runoffs. I am sure if it were 40 years ago, drivers would never be so wreckless. I think the FIA needs to have a think about what drivers are being tought from a young age because when they get to F1 they are on the world stage and young drivers look up to them.

Agree 100% procent.