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

[Skam85]

The 40yrs ago argument is an interesting one, it takes us to 1981 which a certain G Villeneuve was still driving.

Someone referred to at the time (and since) as a somewhat reckless but super quick driver.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

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.

Yup, spot on.

To race you need to be able to trust the other driver, and the rules need to set out the parameters of combat for the untrustworthy.
Sweeping everything under the carpet as a racing incident results in what we saw here.

Both at fault, and racing suffered.

[Adam43]

But they aren’t sweeping everything under the carpet as a racing incident! Pretty much everything gets a penalty now! Certainly much more than previously. They are doing what you want!

[Teretonga]

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:

Id agree with the idea of 'grey areas'
There are basic principles in all stewarding of driving behavior and good stewards have them pretty much all in a line.
In this instance Ocon got penalized for not leaving racing room.
I would say yes that is true. Racing room in that situation is to be able to continue on your trajectory without being forced to leave the racing surface. And he was forced to leave the racing surface.
Ocon didn't really know how close he was. His mistake.
That is situation is common in all motorsports because its a blind spot.
You assume in Vettel's spot have been seen but the person in front thinks your gone, they're further ahead.
Like with Max and HAM at Silverstone.
HAM was significantly alongside but started to let it go and slipped back a bit when Max turned in across the line that Ham would have taken had he remained alongside. Just look at the aerial view. Max definitely turned in to what Ham would have occupied if he had remained in there.
Max obviously assumed he was gone or not there, but he was.

IN karting this happens a lot.
Situational unawareness, especially with kids.
Max learnt to race in karts and still retains a lot of his elbows out "I'll stuff it in there and my skills will sort it out" style o aggressive driving but its really a form of intimidation.

At Silverstone earlier in the first lap before Copse Max and Ham were side by side coming up to a left hander. Max is on the inside and starts to move to the right. HAM gives him room then Max turns left into the turn but not before his right rear makes contact with Hams left front. The same two wheels that touched in Copse.
Was the wheel/suspension damaged or weakened before Copse? I don't know. But if so it explained why the assembly came away so easily and Max lost control at 150mph.

If it was there is no question in my mind that the Max V driving style was the author of his own misfortune , not HAM.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Adam43

But they aren’t sweeping everything under the carpet as a racing incident! Pretty much everything gets a penalty now! Certainly much more than previously. They are doing what you want!

For me, its the forcing a driver wide over a bit of grass / tarmac that I dont like, this usually happens on the exit of a corner in an acceleration zone. The driver on the inside feels they have the right to the whole corner and the driver on the outside gets pushed off. Now I never really saw this kind of driving years ago, but it happens now ALL the time and we have seen it bite drivers like Kimi, when that exact thing happened at Silverstone some years back, he then floored the throttle hit a bump and caused a big crash. Now in that instance there was several people at fault, the inital driver who wrecklessly pushed him wide, Kimi was partially at fault for being wreckless himself and just flooring it over the run off and I guess you could say some small fault lay with the Silverstone itself for not having that area totally flat.

The problem is you have a driver on the inside who feels the corner is theirs and they want to claim it, so they push the outer driver wide. The guy on the inside thinks that the outer driver will bail to the grass / tarmac, but obviously this puts them at a disadvantage due to getting dirty tyres/punctures, so naturally the driver on the outside will resist this, however its almost seen now as an automatic "out" and if the driver on the outside DOESNT move over, they will have a wheel banging session and likely a crash.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Skam85

The 40yrs ago argument is an interesting one, it takes us to 1981 which a certain G Villeneuve was still driving.

Someone referred to at the time (and since) as a somewhat reckless but super quick driver.

The difference is a lot of Gilles' contemporaries said he was always fair when going wheel to wheel and would never intentionally push someone else off

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

For me, its the forcing a driver wide over a bit of grass / tarmac that I dont like, this usually happens on the exit of a corner in an acceleration zone. The driver on the inside feels they have the right to the whole corner and the driver on the outside gets pushed off. Now I never really saw this kind of driving years ago, but it happens now ALL the time and we have seen it bite drivers like Kimi, when that exact thing happened at Silverstone some years back, he then floored the throttle hit a bump and caused a big crash. Now in that instance there was several people at fault, the inital driver who wrecklessly pushed him wide, Kimi was partially at fault for being wreckless himself and just flooring it over the run off and I guess you could say some small fault lay with the Silverstone itself for not having that area totally flat.

The problem is you have a driver on the inside who feels the corner is theirs and they want to claim it, so they push the outer driver wide. The guy on the inside thinks that the outer driver will bail to the grass / tarmac, but obviously this puts them at a disadvantage due to getting dirty tyres/punctures, so naturally the driver on the outside will resist this, however its almost seen now as an automatic "out" and if the driver on the outside DOESNT move over, they will have a wheel banging session and likely a crash.

Lando got pinged for not allowing room for Perez in Austria and again in Zandvoort he did something similar. So there is often a consequence. Its not being ignored.
Sometimes enthusiasts feel that it is being ignored or not enough is being done but you have to remember that this is a sport. A competition.

A competitive game, although a very expensive one.
The cars have a lot to do with it. Incredibly strong, complex, heavy, powerful, aerodynamically very sensitive. Its much harder to pass now. More than it has ever been.
Yet so much safer that the likelihood of getting seriously injured is more remote than ever.
Although if ham Had been injured in his spine at Monza how different would the response been if the race had to be red flagged while he was removed from his car and flown to hospital?

Because its a competition everything is up for grabs. There's a lot at stake.
Fortune favor's the brave....
Remember that.
That is why if someone bullies someone and pulls it off to their advantage they appear to get away with it.

We love dramatic and brave, awesome , amazing moves and overtakes.

I've said this before but I'll repeat it.
In motorsport its a bit like this;

He who dares, if he brings it off, wins.
He who dares, but doesn't bring it off, takes himself out and loses.
He who dares, and takes someone else out, gets penalized.

[tux]

So, this is currently happening over on Twitter. Alan van der Merwe is getting hounded by "F1 fans" over the medical car not being deployed to Lewis Hamilton... Just look at the replies FFS. https://twitter.com/alanvdm/status/1...451153410?s=20

Honestly i cant even deal with these new "social media fans" it never used to be like this.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by tux

So, this is currently happening over on Twitter. Alan van der Merwe is getting hounded by "F1 fans" over the medical car not being deployed to Lewis Hamilton... Just look at the replies FFS. https://twitter.com/alanvdm/status/1...451153410?s=20

Honestly i cant even deal with these new "social media fans" it never used to be like this.

When the responses are from accounts with names like "@ILuvLewisHam" it probably tells you everything you need to know.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Skam85

When the responses are from accounts with names like "@ILuvLewisHam" it probably tells you everything you need to know.

Is 'username checks out' more definitive than 'location checks out'?

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by tux

Honestly i cant even deal with these new "social media fans" it never used to be like this.

Ignore it then. I do. You can be pretty sure AVDM isn’t affected by it either.

[Malfunction Junction]

You’re all overthinking it;

With their slow pit stops it was virtually inevitable that Ricciardo would win the race. Neither of them wanted to do a Shoey, so took each other out to even the score and leave the juice of the foot to someone else.

That’s what team mates are for.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Lando got pinged for not allowing room for Perez in Austria and again in Zandvoort he did something similar. So there is often a consequence. Its not being ignored.
Sometimes enthusiasts feel that it is being ignored or not enough is being done but you have to remember that this is a sport. A competition.

It's not being ignored, but is not policed enough in frequency are severity of penalty for it to be enough of a deterrent to change behaviour.

Yes, Norris gets a minimal penalty while the other guys race is over. In Zandvoort he does the same again so it does not seem he has learned much from the penalty.

Verstappen-Leclerc Austria
Verstappen-Hamilton Barcelona
Verstappen-Hamilton Monza lap 1 T4
Hamilton-Verstappen crash

So let's say for arguments sake Hamilton would have left Verstappen enough room from T1 tot T2. He would've have had to take a tighter arc (like lap 1) and so would've lost some ground because of that. Instead of Verstappen being slightly behind into T2 he probably would've been about equal or slightly ahead.

But now comes T2. Now Verstappen needs to take a much tighter arch to leave Hamilton enough room on the exit of T2. Two things could then have happened:

1 He fails to do so, in my book that is a penalty for Verstappen
2 Or he does leave Hamilton enough room on the outside, Hamilton can take more speed onto curva granda and we could've seen the fight continue into the second chicane.

Glorious stuff potentially. unfortunately like so many times lately many drivers are not willing to go through a corner side by side and it's over within one corner. The current rules unfortunately don't help to change that.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by tux

So, this is currently happening over on Twitter. Alan van der Merwe is getting hounded by "F1 fans" over the medical car not being deployed to Lewis Hamilton... Just look at the replies FFS. https://twitter.com/alanvdm/status/1...451153410?s=20

Honestly i cant even deal with these new "social media fans" it never used to be like this.

Its the reason i deleted social media.

You cant have a sensible conversation on their anymore. its full of 'bots' or trolls, whipping up polarising statments. it was the same after Silverstone when people wanted to burn lewis at the stake...

..and to be fair its not just confined to those 2 drivers, it was the same with Vettel a couple of years back, anti russell brigade...twitter is just a cesspit....only 1 step worse than pistonheads.

At least here, you can have a decent conversation for the majority of time

[john ruston]

Not sure about damage limitation bit!

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Its the reason i deleted social media.

You cant have a sensible conversation on their anymore. its full of 'bots' or trolls, whipping up polarising statments. it was the same after Silverstone when people wanted to burn lewis at the stake...

..and to be fair its not just confined to those 2 drivers, it was the same with Vettel a couple of years back, anti russell brigade...twitter is just a cesspit....only 1 step worse than pistonheads.

At least here, you can have a decent conversation for the majority of time

Yes, at least the rules on here are more stricter on social media platforms, so we can at least be civil more often. Twitter and the like can seem like a free for all and that leads to some very disturbing comments

[Sodemo]

Tarmac run off is partly to blame. Drivers are now expected to run wide as a normality if two cars are side by side, what then happens once a car is on the tarmac / grass / bumps is anyones guess.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Tarmac run off is partly to blame. Drivers are now expected to run wide as a normality if two cars are side by side, what then happens once a car is on the tarmac / grass / bumps is anyones guess.

For a moment there I was trying to work out how tarmac run-off had made Twitter a cesspool

[bobec]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Not really.
Had I been officiating as a steward I'd have listened to his excuses and then warned him about the things he'd missed.
I would have considered a race suspension.

If you follow the onboard it is clear while he is still less than halfway alongside Hamilton and that there is no way he is going to get around the corner on the inside.
That chicane is NOT a piece of track where you can RACE through side by side, even at at 60kph.
The cars are too long and don't have enough lock to enable you to do that with crashing into each other or forcing the other person off the road.
Even in the early part of the corner from Max's camera you can see that Hamilton is lining up from apex to apex.
The natural path for the corner.
There was never any opening to get properly alongside to force the issue.

When he did get alongside his left side was clearly off the racing surface before any contact was ever made.
The only way he even got alongside was by leaving the racing surface which was why the curbs threw him up and on the path he was taking contact would only been avoided if Hamilton backed out of it and let Max have the whole width of the track to resume his race.
But the curb threw him up over Hamilton before that could happen.

So it was Max's actions that caused the collision, not Hamilton's.

What Max should have done was taken the through road and conceded the the position because on turning into the chicane his front wheels were already clearly behind the front wheels of Hamilton
Effectively he caused an otherwise avoidable collision.
It is not a racing incident because the stewards deemed that his passing effort was initiated too late.
From the video angles I would totally agree with that summation.

But there was no way he was going to do that because he didn't want to have to get past Hamilton again when he knew Hamilton had enough speed to make it very difficult for him to do so. He didn't have enough advantage to guarantee an easy pathway.
Ralf Schumacher, an FIA credentialed media person these days made the comment on air that the best thing Max could do in this situation was to take Hamilton out.

That may be partly the reason why Hamilton's boss is suggesting a professional foul.
It may have been but its hard to prove.

What can you say about the part of the stewards' decision where they say Hamilton took an "evasive line" that still pushed Verstappen into the kerb, all in one and the same sentence?

Also, many would say that chicane can accommodate two cars. Or at least that Hamilton could have left some more room and still taken the chicane with that speed. Not that he was obliged to, but could have.

Also they mentioned something about Hamilton being ahead at the 50m board for Turn 1 - that's awfully close to the pit exit, out of which Hamilton was accelerating.

Another thing I noted is that Hamilton had already done his allowed 1 blocking move right before Turn 1, where Verstappen was pushed out of the track, but he kept going because of the astroturf. When I watched him at Turn 2 to me it seemed he deserved some room because he had managed to keep a significant portion of his car alongside, despite getting blocked at Turn 1.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bobec

Also, many would say that chicane can accommodate two cars. Or at least that Hamilton could have left some more room and still taken the chicane with that speed. Not that he was obliged to, but could have.

'Hey, come on through Max, I don't need another WDC really.....'

[bobec]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

'Hey, come on through Max, I don't need another WDC really.....'

They could have raced through the exit. I think Hamilton would have come out ahead, if not then, then in the next bend (Biassono).

With the same logic we can't blame Verstappen for going for it. That was his chance. He was having a promising race until the dreadful pitstop. Then Hamilton had a less than optimal pitstop and that brought them together at Turn 1. That's also probably the best place to pull an overtaking move at Monza (unlike Turn 4). And with the Mercedes being faster on that track, it was Verstappen's only chance to try and pass (or stay ahead after Hamilton pitting). All this talk of a "tactical foul" is just absurd, he didn't go into the turn with the intention to crash, nor was there a way to plan how to crash so both cars are out (not to mention one on top of the other).

For those who are not aware, a "tactical foul" is when in football/soccer a player fouls an opponent on purpose with the intention of preventing a potential scoring opportunity which will be hard or impossible to stop without breaking the rules of the game. It happens a lot during the initiation of counter attacks.

This was just two drivers who were pushing very hard and who were very unyielding to each other. It was actually damn good racing and I would love to see it more often, if it were not for those dumb sausages lining the track.

I watched it live on Sky, and there, as well as in the analysis everyone seemed to think it was a racing incident. The great analyses on the-race also wrote the same. The official F1 analysis from yesterday also calls it a racing incident (though they say Max was just slightly behind to make it 100% clear cut).
But now we have people calling for a race suspension?? It's obvious some are convinced Verstappen crashed on purpose, and that is sad, not just practically impossible to plan it all out like that. I'm haring Max's favorite stewards was one of the deciders

At least the penalty will not be that significant, as RB have to replace an engine and they were considering Sochi anyway. Though now their hand is probably forced. But to me, with the outcome being the same for both drivers after their clash, the penalty may give a psychological advantage to Hamilton.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

It's not being ignored, but is not policed enough in frequency are severity of penalty for it to be enough of a deterrent to change behaviour.

Yes, Norris gets a minimal penalty while the other guys race is over. In Zandvoort he does the same again so it does not seem he has learned much from the penalty.

Verstappen-Leclerc Austria
Verstappen-Hamilton Barcelona
Verstappen-Hamilton Monza lap 1 T4
Hamilton-Verstappen crash

So let's say for arguments sake Hamilton would have left Verstappen enough room from T1 tot T2. He would've have had to take a tighter arc (like lap 1) and so would've lost some ground because of that. Instead of Verstappen being slightly behind into T2 he probably would've been about equal or slightly ahead.

But now comes T2. Now Verstappen needs to take a much tighter arch to leave Hamilton enough room on the exit of T2. Two things could then have happened:

1 He fails to do so, in my book that is a penalty for Verstappen
2 Or he does leave Hamilton enough room on the outside, Hamilton can take more speed onto curva granda and we could've seen the fight continue into the second chicane.

Glorious stuff potentially. unfortunately like so many times lately many drivers are not willing to go through a corner side by side and it's over within one corner. The current rules unfortunately don't help to change that.

Well put Taxi

and another for getting rid of sausage curbs.

Peroni's accident Monza 2019.
https://www.motor1.com/news/369457/f...rash-breaking/

Damn things have potentially caused 2 fatal accidents, Peroni's was more luck than good management, and Lewis was saved by the halo. Time to take the hint.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

It's not being ignored, but is not policed enough in frequency are severity of penalty for it to be enough of a deterrent to change behaviour.

Yes, Norris gets a minimal penalty while the other guys race is over. In Zandvoort he does the same again so it does not seem he has learned much from the penalty.

Verstappen-Leclerc Austria
Verstappen-Hamilton Barcelona
Verstappen-Hamilton Monza lap 1 T4
Hamilton-Verstappen crash

So let's say for arguments sake Hamilton would have left Verstappen enough room from T1 tot T2. He would've have had to take a tighter arc (like lap 1) and so would've lost some ground because of that. Instead of Verstappen being slightly behind into T2 he probably would've been about equal or slightly ahead.

But now comes T2. Now Verstappen needs to take a much tighter arch to leave Hamilton enough room on the exit of T2. Two things could then have happened:

1 He fails to do so, in my book that is a penalty for Verstappen
2 Or he does leave Hamilton enough room on the outside, Hamilton can take more speed onto curva granda and we could've seen the fight continue into the second chicane.

Glorious stuff potentially. unfortunately like so many times lately many drivers are not willing to go through a corner side by side and it's over within one corner. The current rules unfortunately don't help to change that.

good post. Two things.
Your assumption that the penalties are not harsh enough is incorrect. There is an accumulative effective and I can assure you the drivers do feel it.
They are far more sensitive to it than you realize.

The second is the notion that you can effectively pass in Rettifilo and that T2 is possible for two cars to RACE around side b side without someone being pushed off or disadvantaged. Its NOT. Not under racing conditions.

Most chicanes of that nature are not places to pass unless there is a huge disparity in speed, grip and road holding. Under brakes beforehand. Yes. But not IN the chicane.
FIA Kart circuits are 8m wide minimum and drivers use all the road, or as much as possible if they can, and karts are a fraction of the size of a F1 car.
If you had a kart circuit with the chicane the physical side and width of of Rettifilo most of your kart drivers would still go through it in single file....

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wnut

Well put Taxi

and another for getting rid of sausage curbs.

Peroni's accident Monza 2019.
https://www.motor1.com/news/369457/f...rash-breaking/

Damn things have potentially caused 2 fatal accidents, Peroni's was more luck than good management, and Lewis was saved by the halo. Time to take the hint.

You're right about Peroni's incident and that would be a daft place to have a sausage curb so Id have no question about removing that one but the Max V situation is an entirely different set of circumstances and in a different place for a different reason.
Max made deliberate decisions that led to that situation.

[Born Racer]

Having watched it again, I feel this is mostly Verstappen's fault, but by a whisker (and I suppose a little more than a racing incident, but not an absolute stinker by Max). Hamilton absolutely squeezed him and dictated that he had the corner for the second part of the chicane. You can question whether Hamilton should be able to squeeze him so much there.

Assuming Max could still back out, the critical decision was made as soon as he started to turn right. Instead of waiting (or cutting the chicane), he also started to take the right-hander, but due to the finnicky nature of this chicane soon found himself bundled over the kerbs and into Hamilton.

The Senna-Prost Suzuka '89 comparisons are quite relevant, not just for the intense title battle, but for the unwillingness of both to back down.

I would question why Monza needs such tight chicanes. It is difficult enough for the drivers to establish what constitutes fair racing, 'my corner', 'my line' and so on, without the need for an even tighter set of space.