[Official] Saudi Arabian Grand Prix 2021: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 21 of 22

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think you are seriously underestimating the stopping power of an F1 car.

The hardest braking on the calendar occurs at Montreal, where 5G is reached.
Baku sees two moments of >4.5G.
For Max to have applied 2.4G, that is a considerably strong brake application.
Hamilton was in 4th immediately prior to the collision, so closing speed would have been high.

I'm not underestimating anything, 2.4g is 2.4g, physics is physics. You need to know the duration of that deaccelleration to know the actual speed delta. Again it is simple physics.

That said, even if it only was 1/10th of a second it would still be very unsportmanslike and unsafe driving and it was rightly penalized.

As said both were dissapointing in regards to sportmanship and unsafe driving. Max more so than Lewis. Mercedes are just a bit more sneaky by doing it (mostly) within tbe rules and getting under Max his skin that way.

I'll expand later on that, if I have the time.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I'm not underestimating anything, 2.4g is 2.4g, physics is physics. You need to know the duration of that deaccelleration to know the actual speed delta. Again it is simple physics.

On one hand, I think the duration is irrelevant. It was sudden and erratic, even if only for a split second.

On the other hand, yes closing speed does have some relevance. But not in terms of how much Verstappen slowed, but how much distance was covered by Hamilton in terms of reaction.

As a benchmark, reaction times are included in the UK's highway code. This gives an indication that for speeds of 70mph (112kph), the thinking distance to react is 21m. Conservatively double this (and remember that Hamilton does not have a brake light to react to), and Hamilton has covered >40m before he is able to react to Max's braking.
Verstappen only needs to have slowed by 5kph, and in that 40 metres the gap between them will have closed by >1.5 metres. At the time Max applied the brakes, the distance between them was <1 metre.

Close up by >1.5 m when you are already <1 metre apart, and a collision is inevitable.

[Akrapovic]

We have enough data to work out the duration of the braking event. I did not do the maths, but somebody else did:

Speed before braking: 160kph
Speed after braking: 110kph
Force: -2.6G

160/3.6=~44.5m/s
110/3.6=~30.5m/s
->44.5-30.5=14.0m/s difference in speed

g-force=[delta v(velocity/our 14m/s)/delta t(which we don't know)]/9.81m/s²
2.6g=(14/x)/9.81
x=0.55s

In plain English: Verstappen decelerated by approx 50kmh in approx 0.5 seconds.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Wims

This is a horrible, dangerous track. Hopefully they won't come back again

Having posted the below in the 'How to Fix F1' thread, I think the wheel has stopped at 'Too many DNF's'

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I agree - but any changes like that should not be made during a season.

The decision to penalise Verstappen happened after the race had concluded, and anything more than 10 seconds would see many pointing at Silverstone (and Hamilton's 10 second penalty) as setting a precedent.

If the powers that be decide that what we have seen recently is too extreme, then harsher penalties should become the norm. But that is a matter for next season, not this I feel.

I wouldn't expect it to be enacted during a season, however extreme circumstances might dictate that that might not be the case.

A quiet word to both of them, or maybe at the drivers' briefing at the last race, that they might or could expect a severe penalty for such antics might be enough for no repeat of what we have seen this year.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

We have enough data to work out the duration of the braking event. I did not do the maths, but somebody else did:

Speed before braking: 160kph
Speed after braking: 110kph
Force: -2.6G

160/3.6=~44.5m/s
110/3.6=~30.5m/s
->44.5-30.5=14.0m/s difference in speed

g-force=[delta v(velocity/our 14m/s)/delta t(which we don't know)]/9.81m/s²
2.6g=(14/x)/9.81
x=0.55s

In plain English: Verstappen decelerated by approx 50kmh in approx 0.5 seconds.

Thanks for that. And to add (for racing context) 'Verstappen decelerated by approx 50kmh in approx 0.5 seconds whilst another driver was less than 1 metre behind him'

[Aysedasi]

Well. I confess I watched that race (highlights) with my heart in my mouth - as I did with qually. Exciting, yes, but I firmly believe we and the sport are lucky that there wasn't a massive accident on that track and someone seriously injured or worse.

I've read all through the race comments and had a few raised eyebrows and a good few chuckles to myself as well. I know we hate the phrase 'location checks out' with a vengeance these days, but.....

The race director's 'negotiations' with RBR were quite extraordinary and frankly downright embarrassing for F1, IMO.

We saw two great drivers battling each other but sadly one who will not only give no quarter but is quite unable to consider the possibility of conceding a corner when it is clearly lost. The various incidents have been discussed in some detail so I'm not even going there although it's certainly interesting to note that the telemetry does show that Max didn't just lift off, he braked (albeit momentarily) as well. I have no issue with whoever wins the WDC this season and part of me is pleased that we go into the race with a 'winner takes all' situation, but Max dropped significantly in my estimation of him as a driver yesterday. And he really needs to get away from the poisonous atmosphere that Horner and Marko have created - for his sake.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

And he really needs to get away from the poisonous atmosphere that Horner and Marko have created - for his sake.

For the good of the F1 sporting contest - I hope Max wins the WDC.
For the good of the F1 sporting character - I hope Max is humiliated in the last race.

[TrapezeArtist]

What a shambles! The only positive I can take from that race is that the more meritorious driver finally came out on top, and he won by making a pass under racing conditions.

The rest of it opens up all sorts of issues:

Giving a Place Back
I'm not sure this is even in the rule book. To me it is just a practice that has grown up in everything from club karting to F1, where a driver who has inadvertently made an illegal overtake (under yellows for instance) hopes to avoid a penalty by reversing his gain. It seems like it is now time to regulate this practice a little more. Someone else's suggestion seems sensible that having given the place back you cannot overtake again until one full lap has been completed.
Although I have generally got my enthusiasm for Michael Masi well under control, I think his "negotiations" with Red Bull made sense in the circumstances. Unfortunately it seems like his initial suggestion took no account of Ocon so it took some toing and froing to sort it out.

Safety Car Rules
With the VSC and red flag, use of the safety car should be pretty minimal. But when it is used it shouldn't be capable of messing up the balance of the race by giving some people an almost free pitstop. I wouldn't suggest a total closure of the pitlane as that would be a problem for a car with a puncture or nose damage. Instead I would say a car pitting under the safety car must remain stationary for an extended period (say 10 or 15 seconds). This would be about the time needed to change a nose anyway and would negate the advantage to anyone trying to just make a routine stop.

Red Flag Rules
Plenty of people have highlighted the issue of free tyre changes during a stoppage. I was going to suggest a parc ferme with the caveat of allowing anyone breaking parc ferme to restart from the pitlane at the back of the field. However someone earlier mentioned the issue of possible tyre damage due to driving over debris so I think the suggestion of being able to change to a used set of the same compound is a good one. 'Used' means they are unlikely to gain a tyre performance advantage, and 'same compound' means they still have to make their compulsory stop to change compound.

Driving Standards
It was Senna who invented "give way or we crash" and he seemed to get away with it. Schumacher developed the theme further, and although he was penalised a couple of times he mostly got away with it. Now Verstappen is taking it far beyond anything either of those could have dreamed of. It's ugly, it's unfair, it's unsporting and it's dangerous. From the first race of 2022 the FIA needs to make it clear that there will be a severe crackdown, and then do it.
Ironically the three aforementioned drivers were/are brilliant, and could achieve almost as much fairly, if they were disposed to do so.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

And he really needs to get away from the poisonous atmosphere that Horner and Marko have created - for his sake.

While Christian Horner spouts the most incredible rubbish at times, and seems completely unaware of the hypocrisy in some of his statements, I feel inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is an employee and he is paid to take that approach. It's Helmut Marko who I believe has created the Red Bull modus operandi, presumably endorsed or encouraged by Dieter Mateschitz. And Max Verstappen is the product Jos Verstappen.

[schanche]

Well very eventful race, Am I right in saying Lewis did his upmost to get round those corners in the incidents and Max just took it to go straight on Lewis drove exceptionally well to minimise damage to his car except for the obvious contact. So level on points but Max just has the lead on wins so going into the final race if they were both taking out by Max I guess he would still win WDC?.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Giving a Place Back
I'm not sure this is even in the rule book. To me it is just a practice that has grown up in everything from club karting to F1, where a driver who has inadvertently made an illegal overtake (under yellows for instance) hopes to avoid a penalty by reversing his gain. It seems like it is now time to regulate this practice a little more. Someone else's suggestion seems sensible that having given the place back you cannot overtake again until one full lap has been completed.
Although I have generally got my enthusiasm for Michael Masi well under control, I think his "negotiations" with Red Bull made sense in the circumstances. Unfortunately it seems like his initial suggestion took no account of Ocon so it took some toing and froing to sort it out.

Sporting Regulations say:

'Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. At the absolute discretion of the Race Director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he gained by leaving the track.'

[Akrapovic]

Can someone explain to me how that restart grid was even set?

Firstly, the race director should not be playing Deal or No Deal with teams over what penalties they should get. You are a race director. Direct the race.

However, outside of that, was the grid not set incorrectly? Don't red flags roll back to last time over the line, or even the lap before? How did we end up with Ocon on pole, when Ocon never crossed the line in the lead?

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Sporting Regulations say:

'Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. At the absolute discretion of the Race Director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he gained by leaving the track.'

Thanks for that.

Obviously Ocon muddied the waters of what "give back the whole of any advantage" means. I suppose it should have meant Max should have dropped back behind Lewis, which would have still meant Ocon gaining a place and Lewis losing one, but it would be harsh to tell Ocon to drop back too. He simply grabbed the opportunity he was given.

So much happened, I can't even remember what the grid order finally was for the restart.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Can someone explain to me how that restart grid was even set?

Firstly, the race director should not be playing Deal or No Deal with teams over what penalties they should get. You are a race director. Direct the race.

However, outside of that, was the grid not set incorrectly? Don't red flags roll back to last time over the line, or even the lap before? How did we end up with Ocon on pole, when Ocon never crossed the line in the lead?

I think firstly - the Race Director is within their right to offer the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he gained by leaving the track - iaw Article 27.3 of the Sporting Regulations. To me, that is what Masi was doing.

Secondly - the procedure for suspending a race is covered in article 41.
In summary - at the point of suspension overtaking is prohibited. All cars are to proceed in their current order to the pitlane and line up at the exit. Safety car then moves to the front of the queue. Neither the race or timekeeping is stopped.
When the race is due to recommence, those cars between the leader and the Safety Car leave the pits and complete one lap, joining the back of the queue. The race is then ultimately resumed behind the Safety Car in that order.
The cars then complete a further lap behind the Safety Car and form up on the grid in the order they were in before the race was suspended.

In even more summarised form - the race was never stopped, just suspended behind a stationary Safety Car.

[chillibowl]

Just speaking about the deal (which i had little problem with to be honest), had the matter been referred to the stewards, what would have been the outcome?

A delay to the restart while they deliberated? An extra lap or two while max gave up the place behind the formation SC? A time penalty which with a bunched up grid would have put Max at the back of the grid?

Granted seperating the two would have prevented the later incidents and i get that you cant completely prioritize entertainment over saftey but you also cant ignore entertainment either.

I don't know though, maybe im missing the larger point here. not the first or last time that will happen.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Just speaking about the deal (which i had little problem with to be honest), had the matter been referred to the stewards, what would have been the outcome?

I think there would only be two potential outcomes.

A) - Stewards feel no penalty is warranted.
B) - Stewards feel a time penalty is warranted, which would be issued once the racing was underway.

AFAIK, the Stewards do not have the authority to offer the relinquishing of the place (that is not in their list of available sanctions).

[chillibowl]

So if its A) then more controversy.

If its B) then max still gets to take the re start ahead of the driver he gained an unfair advantage over.

I feel i still must stand by my earlier post, that a compromise made before turing it over to rhe stewards was both the timely and fair thing to do.

[paulzinho]

It's been a very long time since I posted on here but thought I'd dip in after yesterday's eventful event....

Limits are clearly being pushed by Max and the brake test was over the top. At the same time Lewis had all the chance in the world not to drive into the back of him.... no idea what's going on in his head but he should be doing better there.

Ultimately I think the last few races have come down to Max and Red Bull feeling massively aggrieved that Lewis punted Max off at Silverstone and Bottas took him out at Budapest. Lewis makes off with 43 points (plus any fastest laps that escape my memory) and Max gets 2. Effectively Mercedes taking him out have cost him a title he'd already have right now. Now Mercedes have the faster car Max is clearly pushing it right to the Max (pardon the pun) and beyond yet hasn't clawed back the losses he suffered before.

Personally I think Mercedes whinge a bit too much about hard racing sometimes. Maybe a result of having things their own way for so long. I don't really have much time for Horner as a person though I have some sympathy with red bull this season.

Abu Dhabi should be interesting... I just need to find somewhere in the middle of Lapland that shows the race next week where obviously I'll be supporting Kimi!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

So if its A) then more controversy.

If its B) then max still gets to take the re start ahead of the driver he gained an unfair advantage over.

I feel i still must stand by my earlier post, that a compromise made before turing it over to rhe stewards was both the timely and fair thing to do.

Yes - I agree too that the discussion between Masi and RBR was the right thing to do.

If the stewards had opted to issue a penalty, then yes Max takes the re-start ahead of Hamilton, but that is the nature of the race never actually stopping (just suspended).

I think you have to consider that the suspension of the race shouldn't change things (stand fast on the tyre debate). So if the race was not red-flagged, Max would be ahead on the track and offered the chance to return the place. If he decided to not do that, then he faces a penalty but retains his (current) track position.
So 'pausing' everything under a red flag, Max's options remain the same.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

On one hand, I think the duration is irrelevant. It was sudden and erratic, even if only for a split second.

On the other hand, yes closing speed does have some relevance. But not in terms of how much Verstappen slowed, but how much distance was covered by Hamilton in terms of reaction.

As a benchmark, reaction times are included in the UK's highway code. This gives an indication that for speeds of 70mph (112kph), the thinking distance to react is 21m. Conservatively double this (and remember that Hamilton does not have a brake light to react to), and Hamilton has covered >40m before he is able to react to Max's braking.
Verstappen only needs to have slowed by 5kph, and in that 40 metres the gap between them will have closed by >1.5 metres. At the time Max applied the brakes, the distance between them was <1 metre.

Close up by >1.5 m when you are already <1 metre apart, and a collision is inevitable.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

We have enough data to work out the duration of the braking event. I did not do the maths, but somebody else did:

Speed before braking: 160kph
Speed after braking: 110kph
Force: -2.6G

160/3.6=~44.5m/s
110/3.6=~30.5m/s
->44.5-30.5=14.0m/s difference in speed

g-force=[delta v(velocity/our 14m/s)/delta t(which we don't know)]/9.81m/s²
2.6g=(14/x)/9.81
x=0.55s

In plain English: Verstappen decelerated by approx 50kmh in approx 0.5 seconds.

As I can't verify the source of the data I can't meaningfully comment. On the whole we don't disagree that it shouldn't belong on a race track. So let's agree to mostly agree.

[paulzinho]

I'll also add.... bring back gravel traps and get rid of tarmac run offs if you want to resolve track limit issues.

Has been a frustration for so long that running off track incurs zero punishment. You get it wrong... it should cost you time and yes sometimes even your race...

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

On the whole we don't disagree that it shouldn't belong on a race track. So let's agree to mostly agree.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think you have to consider that the suspension of the race shouldn't change things (stand fast on the tyre debate).

Thats a fair point.

I suppose its the modern sports fan in me though where timeouts and stoppages are frequently used to set right a previous bad or missed infraction.

Within reason of course, but the chance to relook at something, use some replays etc to get the call correct is more important then simply adhearing to the flow of time.

Anyways its all hindsight, but maybe race control needs to micro manage anytime someone tries to pass Max?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by paulzinho

I'll also add.... bring back gravel traps and get rid of tarmac run offs if you want to resolve track limit issues.

Has been a frustration for so long that running off track incurs zero punishment. You get it wrong... it should cost you time and yes sometimes even your race...

A relevant question for sure...

But if physical barriers are not enough to prevent dangerous driving then why would less punishing gravel traps yield better results?

Its a difficult job for the refs, nothing is clear cut, but ultimately I think they need to be the ones setting the rules and standards and applying them (even when it is contrary to my earlier points about valuing entertainment).

Letting the track itself sort it out seems like a different disaster waiting to happen?