[Official] Austrian Grand Prix: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 9 of 21

[F1Pete]

I thought that was an awesome move by Max. He was racing. It was a race wasn't it? I seriously couldn't believe that the stewards even had to step in and make a decision. At least they made the correct one.

Leclerc on the other hand reminded me of Michael Schumacher banging into Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez in 97. If you watch the replay, Leclerc bangs his front wheel into Max at the second point of contact. It hasn't taken long for Leclerc to adopt MS's driving style while he was driving the red cars.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[S griffin]

I can’t believe Leclerc is being compared to Schumacher in Jerez 97. I’ve seen several incidents in my time and I could probably think of many incidents that was more like Schumi’s tactics, before I get to Leclerc

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I think you make interesting points, and I'm not saying I disagree, but I feel a lot of credit is being given to the stewards here for a decision that seemed to struggle with. Had they made this decision within a few minutes then I can see the merit for praising them. But as it stands, they clearly struggled with it, and I find it very hard to argue or believe the right thing was done given that it could so easily have went the other way.

I believe on any other day the decision could have gone the other way. And I believe that had Montreal not been so fresh in their minds, then we would have not waited over double the race time before a decision was finally made. Under those circumstances it appears that the FIA managed to come to a good decision through blind luck. Broken clock, twice a day, etc.

This article published yesterday explains the timeline of the stewards' decision in Austria. Pretty normal (short even) for a hearing where teams attend and give evidence.

[greentrumpet]

So. after 2 years of being unable to race without too many mistakes, Vettel is punished at a time that is unlikely to affect him or Ferrari.
LH is then punished for what appears to be an error without malice aforethought.
The Stewards get a pasting for enforcing rules to stop thuggish behaviour.
Max misses the apex (deliberately?) and takes a wide line thereafter, forcing Leclerc off the track. The rules (possibly imperfect) are not enforced.

I loved seeing Max in a marvellous recovery drive and would have liked to see him win without resorting to Senna/Schumacher tactics, failing that, enforce the (reasonable) rules and give Leclerc his first win.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Does that mean complaining about another driver's actions over the radio is excusable if you are inexperienced - but not acceptable from more experienced drivers?

Understandable in the heat of the moment whether you are Hamilton or Leclerc. Tedious if you are either too.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Describing the same facts in a different way, the Canada decision prevented a driver benefiting from an error while the Austria decision rewarded the driver who made the bold move.

These two decisions are a lovely example of how it is possible to draw two completely different conclusions from the same facts...and for both conclusions for to be entirely legitimate.

My subjective view is that both decisions were morally correct for the reason described above - Vettel deserved to lose because he cracked under pressure while Verstappen deserved to win because we want to encourage aggressive racing. But the reverse conclusion, that Vettel was punished for a genuine error while Verstappen got away with pushing a rival off the track, is also entirely consistent with the facts. Into this grey area must step the stewards, trying to be both consistent and right and inevitably occasionally unable to be both.

Alternatively Vettel who made a mistake, had no choice as to how he was going to rejoin the track, but was able to stay ahead of Hamilton was penalized, but Max who deliberately rammed the leading car out of the way was rewarded.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by gert

Exactly that.
Things would be different if in between the FIA would have cameup with a definitive "this is allowed, this is not allowed" but that did not happen.


As for the move where the overtaking driver pushes his opponent off the track, I absolutely hate that. And by pushing I both mean the physical contact and forcing him off track by leaving nowhere to go.
I don't care if it is called "the karting move" or "the F3 move" (both were mentioned yesterday) as far as I'm concerned it should be forbidden. Just like the moving under breaking that was practiced a few years ago and banned as well.

I like clean racing where drivers give eachother room.

Verstappen can do that, see all his other overtakes in Austria. See also his previous attempt on Leclerc.
By leaving space, Leclerc could come back at him. That is what I want to see, not gaining an advantage by pushing your opponent wide
[advantage gained as in: make sure your opponent can not fight back, not as in: gaining a position - the position was already taken]


I am all for a zero tolerance on that kind of move. Not only in F1, but also in F2, F3, ...

If close racing is to take place then the drivers have to trust one another and operate to a clear set of rules. Once the rules become blurred and subjective then it is impossible to race closely because the unprincipled will always take advantage of the situation.

Originally Posted by Kempi
What is mostworrying as a Ferrari fan: was Leclerc naive to think he could play fair with Verstappen? Verstappen has a very onedimensional mindset: fair is what I can use to my advantage. Leclerc should have expected that. Leclerc should never have left the door as wide open as he did.

Is it just inexperience or is it missing ruthlessnes?

In this case I think politics dictated that the on track results suited the agenda.

Different winner than Ferrari or Mercedes. Tick.
Home town winner in front of a huge number of Dutch fans. Tick.
Red Bulll ring. Tick
Great promotion for Zandvoort next year. Tick.
Encouragement to Honda that they can win. Tick.
An actual overtake for the lead. Tick.

There was never going to be a penalty for boorish behavior was there!?

[Purist]

I would prefer a "clean" move, but saying that Max deliberately rammed Charles is over the top. Max learned from the previous two laps that he HAD TO brake deeper the third time to be able to make the move stick. He was on the limit, just shy of locking up, and ran wide mid-corner.

Just the lap prior, Max had his rear tires even with Charles' fronts, having taken the Ferrari as wide as he could while both were still on course; Max lost on the run to Turn 4, even with the aid of DRS. The lap before that, Max was basically as close as he could be without hitting the Ferrari's tail, and the physical gap just opened too much on the run out because of how slow Turn 3 is. Asking Max to repeat either of those two scenarios is asking him to be stupid as a racer.

I understand the thrust of Gert's post, but I would point out that drivers "positioning their cars cleverly", as many a former racer has put it, is a ubiquitous and long-standing way to "make sure your opponent cannot fight back".

Also, for all the talk of how guys shouldn't be pushed off track, I've heard nary a peep about Grosjean in either Canada or Austria. At Montreal, Perez pushed the Haas off at Turn 1 on Lap 32. In the case of the Red Bull Ring, it was Albon doing the pushing in Turn 1 on Lap 10.

As for track limits generally, it looked like Hamilton was routinely availing himself of putting his car wholly on the curbs and extra tarmac at the exit of Turn 1; there were various instances of cars going fully outside the white lines at Turns 8, 9, and 10 as well.

The simplest and most straightforward solution would be to not give them all that width of curb or paved run-off. Short of that, it looks like we need to redefine a common standard of what "off track" even means, because across the various series, it doesn't seem like we have a grasp of where that line even is anymore.

After Vettel/Bottas had their stops, I hope we're not headed for still more rules, this time against using the time gap to an oppoent and the narrow pit lanes to intentionally impede an opponent. Honestly, coming up with racing in North America, if anything, I find the "international standard" pit lanes to seem "dangerously narrow".

Anyway, we got a break from the "penalty fatigue" this time (Max at Monaco, Seb in Montreal, and Daniel at Paul Ricard), we had a number of good overtakes, a 3-lap battle for the lead (which had been building over the prior 10), and it wasn't even remotely a Mercedes runaway. I'll take it!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by wnut

Alternatively Vettel who made a mistake, had no choice as to how he was going to rejoin the track, but was able to stay ahead of Hamilton was penalized, but Max who deliberately rammed the leading car out of the way was rewarded.

Hmmm. Neither of those descriptions matched what I saw. 'Rammed'?

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by wnut

Alternatively Vettel who made a mistake, had no choice as to how he was going to rejoin the track, but was able to stay ahead of Hamilton was penalized, but Max who deliberately rammed the leading car out of the way was rewarded.

Yes and no.

Yes because the incidents can perfectly well be described in different ways.

No because you have added facts not in evidence. It's actually a lovely example of how subtle changes to how something is worded can completely change the argument. In this case you have added "no choice" and "rammed". The stewards actually penalised Vettel for an additional movement after he had initially regained control, ie an act which he chose. And Verstappen may have steered into Leclerc, but he didn't ram him, which is a different and much more deliberate act.

If I sound like a lawyer here, it's because I am. In law there is a clear distinction between The Facts and The Law. Basic principle is to establish (1) what happened and (2) what's the law. Then you apply (2) to (1) to get your result. The Facts in both cases are the speed, trajectory, driver inputs and outcome. The Law is what is written in the rules.

The reason it takes time is that these are separate processes. What exactly happened - telemetry, slow-mo, measurement. What are the rules - defined effects, benefits and impact on other drivers. Then apply (2) to (1).

Much of the commentary conflates the two things, often by subtly changing the description or definition of the facts to make it more or less obvious what the result should be under the rules. Just like you did with "choice" and "rammed".

(Sorry to pick on you, it's just to illustrate the point. Plenty of others do the same and much less so on these forums than in the social media cesspool.)

[S griffin]

Well said, Max didn’t squeeze Leclerc, he just out muscled him, knowing from the previous lap that leaving room wasn’t going to get him in front. Hard but fair

[Compromised]

Vettel didn't squeeze Hamilton he just out muscled him

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Compromised

Vettel didn't squeeze Hamilton he just out muscled him

Nope.

[djinvicta]

All in all, well done Max. He was on a far better set of tyres and ran/out braked Leclerc "wide" to overtake. Just as Leclerc did to him in karts a few years ago. There is history between the guys. Get them both in Mercedes team for some great battles. Kept me on the edge of the seat for once.. I cheered!

[JeremySmith]

The setting is stunning, I love this race and it remains high on my list as a race to attend ...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

The setting is stunning, I love this race and it remains high on my list as a race to attend ...

Welcome back! I think you have been gone for awhile?

Richard

[JeremySmith]

Hello Richard yes I have, all is well ....

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

The setting is stunning, I love this race and it remains high on my list as a race to attend ...

I went years ago. It is great, I loved it

[JeremySmith]

I bet you did Adam it’s so beautiful, and produces super racing ...

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

No further action.

There are endurance races that take less time than it took the stewards to announce no penalty.

https://www.autosport.com/gt/news/14...after-24-hours

[Akrapovic]

That is true Although Autosport does leave out the details of that one. Car was found illegal the day of the race, but the team questioned the testing equipment. The car was impounded until third-party equipment could be found and used.

[Adam43]

They did point out that the decision in Austria took time because of media commitments and starting the hearing. F1 centric again.

[Akrapovic]

I think it would've been wise to move the media commitments, especially given it's hard to talk about the race to the media when you don't know the result

[Adam43]

Ah, but then you'd miss the in the moment responses. It's good to have some build up too.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I don't think anyone suggested you made any comparison between Hamilton and Leclerc?

I brought in the quote from another thread [and deliberately removed the poster] merely to highlight how no one has criticised Leclerc for 'complaining about another driver', but Hamilton (and other more experienced drivers) are generally criticised for doing the same.

So I am finally able to start catching up on the forum. I see you pulled my quote to make some point. No, Leclerc is not a phony, as is hamilton, because he hasn't (as far as I have seen) been going on and on about wanting wheel to wheel battles with the top guys (tho that is probably implied in the choice of career). I also was dissappointed in leclercs post race complaining, tho if memory serves, he did very little and still was somewhat positive in the interviews postrace.

I still find it funny that when it benefits hamilton and helps to put a hammerlock on the championship, the stewards step in. Then one race later, when it doesn't involve hamilton, they dont. Though maybe it is a little bit of popularity judging going on? Rule in favor of penalty to benefit Hamilton over Vettel, siding with more popular driver, then go in opposite direction very next race and don't penalize the more popular driver... Who knows. I'm just on the side of the inconsistency is maddening.

This was a fantastic race though.