[Official] French Grand Prix 2018: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

I don't think he necessarily expected Bottas to slot in as he did. No it wasn't a misjudge of speed as such, as Bottas himself showed you could successfully brake significantly later for that corner.

Vettel and Bottas were on different tyres and Martin Brundle suggested that with Vettel being on the softer tyre, he was able to carry more speed but misjudged it, locked up and went into the back of Bottas. That seemed to make sense.

[ASCII Man]

With the exception that Vettel didn't lock up.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

With the exception that Vettel didn't lock up.

Except for the fact that he did. If you look at the front left, you can see the puff of smoke from the lock up before he makes contact with Bottas....

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Except for the fact that he did. If you look at the front left, you can see the puff of smoke from the lock up before he makes contact with Bottas....

Except the tire didn't stop spinning, so can't be locked. That's the definition, I've looked, I've watched it a few times, no lockup, believe the crap tires they provide actually broke traction because well Pirelli

[Adam43]

What an argument. One for the ages.

The main point remains. It was a misjudgement and he was on the edge. He braked too late, but is a good driver so managed to stop the tyre coming to a complete lock up. Thus minimising the severity. Still too late though.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

What an argument. One for the ages.

The main point remains. It was a misjudgement and he was on the edge. He braked too late, but is a good driver so managed to stop the tyre coming to a complete lock up. Thus minimising the severity. Still too late though.

I think this fits in with Brundle's take, regarding the tyres.

https://youtu.be/dOCcPHNdaJc

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I think this fits in with Brundle's take, regarding the tyres.

https://youtu.be/dOCcPHNdaJc

Thanks for that link - definitely clearer in that video.

You can see a dark spot on the tyre as Vettel locks up before impact, which remains stationary (i.e. the tyre has stopped rotating).

[S griffin]

Either way, it's another unnecessary mistake from Vettel

[wnut]

When someone cuts across the front of the car like that, they take the clean air off the wing and it stops working, from then on you are a passenger. Game over.

Does not appear to be a car width on the inside of Bottas either.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by wnut

When someone cuts across the front of the car like that, they take the clean air off the wing and it stops working, from then on you are a passenger. Game over.

Does not appear to be a car width on the inside of Bottas either.

How far alongside you does a car need to be before you have to leave a car's width and not follow the racing line through a corner?

F1Metrics has one view (that I agree with) on the matter...

'B. Attacker less than half-way alongside:
In this case, the attacker has only their front wing alongside the defender’s rear wheel. The defender has the right to the racing line. A collision at the apex is entirely the fault of the attacker.'

[wnut]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

How far alongside you does a car need to be before you have to leave a car's width and not follow the racing line through a corner?

F1Metrics has one view (that I agree with) on the matter...

'B. Attacker less than half-way alongside:
In this case, the attacker has only their front wing alongside the defender’s rear wheel. The defender has the right to the racing line. A collision at the apex is entirely the fault of the attacker.'

I agree with this interpretation, however the F1 stewarding decisions have interpreted it as leaving a car's width.
The stewards here said that Bottas had left room for Vettel, when clearly he did not.
Another dubious decision, because they don't consistently interpret rules and make all sorts of justifications to get what they want.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by wnut

I agree with this interpretation, however the F1 stewarding decisions have interpreted it as leaving a car's width.
The stewards here said that Bottas had left room for Vettel, when clearly he did not.
Another dubious decision, because they don't consistently interpret rules and make all sorts of justifications to get what they want.

I haven't seen the steward's report - but were they referring to leaving room on the straight, in the braking zone, or through the corner?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

How far alongside you does a car need to be before you have to leave a car's width and not follow the racing line through a corner?

The "instructions" that you quote from F1 Metrics have a great similarity to instructions that used to be given at drivers' briefings back in the 1960s.



However, given today's equipment and technology in the cars, I don't know how relevant that instruction is. Cars back then didn't stop like they do now, nor did they handle any where near as well as current cars do.


We couldn't do the things that are regularly done nowadays. It was brought home to me a few weeks ago when I was given the opportunity to test a few cars at a horrendously sodden Croft. Even on road equivalent tyres, what you could achieve, in terms of both braking and moving under turn in, would have been impossible back then in the dry using proper racing tyres. Let alone the stopping power.

[Akrapovic]

I don't tend to think normal racing rules like this apply in turn 1. Whether you have the right to turn over someone or not, on lap 1, doing so is going to cause an accident.

[Peter Mallett]

Hmm,

So what everyone is suggesting is that Bottas should have run off the road on the outside of the corner to allow Vettel through? If you recall Vettel did something similar in Baku.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The "instructions" that you quote from F1 Metrics have a great similarity to instructions that used to be given at drivers' briefings back in the 1960s.



However, given today's equipment and technology in the cars, I don't know how relevant that instruction is. Cars back then didn't stop like they do now, nor did they handle any where near as well as current cars do.


We couldn't do the things that are regularly done nowadays. It was brought home to me a few weeks ago when I was given the opportunity to test a few cars at a horrendously sodden Croft. Even on road equivalent tyres, what you could achieve, in terms of both braking and moving under turn in, would have been impossible back then in the dry using proper racing tyres. Let alone the stopping power.

I am far from an expert on the matter - but the F1Metrics 'instructions' were posted in 2014. I would imagine they are still applicable less than 4 years later?

Unless there has been a clarification or direction given by FIA, or that the recent changes in the cars has changed them significantly from 2014?

Either way - I still feel that Bottas was not in the wrong with his approach to the corner, and that Vettel was carrying a little too much speed relative to Bottas to allow him to slow sufficiently to prevent incident. Vettel himself has said he had to open the steering a little to be able to brake in time.

[ASCII Man]

F1Metrics is not the be all and end all of F1 racing etiquette. I'm not sure why they're being put forward here as the authority on the subject as it just looks like any other of the thousands of F1 'blogs' that litter the interwebs.

[crmalcolm]

I currently can't find reference in the current sporting regulations, but the previous iteration said the following:

'27.6 [...]Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.

27.7 Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. [...] For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’.'

Now these two regulations are related to corner approach and along a straight, they do offer an insight into why Bottas was not in the wrong.

Firstly - was Vettel alongside, and so should be given racing room? No - because his front wing was not alongside the rear wheel before Bottas took the racing line.

Secondly - was Bottas allowed to move over? Yes - because he had not made a move off the racing line to defend a position, he was on the racing line from the start of the race until the impact.

Thirdly - did Bottas leave racing room? Yes - as can be seen from the screenshot below, there was a car's width available for Vettel before impact.


So in summary - Vettel caused an avoidable accident by approaching the corner too fast. He locked up, and then opened the steering. If he had done neither of these, he would have been able to put his car into the room that had been allowed by Bottas. Bottas was not at fault because he gave racing room, and did not carry out an illegal block or cut over in front of Vettel.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Hmm,

So what everyone is suggesting is that Bottas should have run off the road on the outside of the corner to allow Vettel through?

right! there seems to be a decreasing amount of onus being placed on the following driver to bring their car through a corner undamaged.

probably a cynical (and off the cuff) way to look at this but is this an unintended consequence of a DRS(if you dont go for the gap you are not a real race car driver) culture?

by that i mean too much power is being given to the follower instead of the leader...if that makes sense.

[S griffin]

It was just a mistake, but at the same time one that could have been avoided

[Peter Mallett]

And it's the only thing about the race worth discussing. Make of that what you will.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I currently can't find reference in the current sporting regulations, but the previous iteration said the following:

'27.6 [...]Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.

27.7 Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. [...] For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’.'

Now these two regulations are related to corner approach and along a straight, they do offer an insight into why Bottas was not in the wrong.

Firstly - was Vettel alongside, and so should be given racing room? No - because his front wing was not alongside the rear wheel before Bottas took the racing line.

Secondly - was Bottas allowed to move over? Yes - because he had not made a move off the racing line to defend a position, he was on the racing line from the start of the race until the impact.

Thirdly - did Bottas leave racing room? Yes - as can be seen from the screenshot below, there was a car's width available for Vettel before impact.


So in summary - Vettel caused an avoidable accident by approaching the corner too fast. He locked up, and then opened the steering. If he had done neither of these, he would have been able to put his car into the room that had been allowed by Bottas. Bottas was not at fault because he gave racing room, and did not carry out an illegal block or cut over in front of Vettel.

Having seen the onboard, I agree with this assessment.

But since this is F1, and rules are read literally, this is a good example of why the rules don't work off the start line. That says any car attempting to pass should be significantly alongside. But is Vettel the one trying to pass? He pulled ahead of Bottas on the straight. Bottas braked later to retake the pass. So is Bottas the one now making the pass? Given there was a 5 hour argument on how to define a "hole", I think you could get a week out of that one in a court of appeal.

Rules written like this assume this is beyond the first corner. Vettel is at fault here, but I'm not a fan of trying to write down in the rules who is at fault during first corner mayhem.

Also the wheel did stop rotating - 10 seconds exactly in the video, the wheel is no longer rotating.

But I also think going to the other extreme is a little melodramatic. "Should Rosberg run off the road to give someone space?". Let's calm down a bit here. Paul Ricard is as wide as the new Heathrow runway, and then some. He had plenty more room to the outside before he was even going close to off the road.

[Purist]

In general, I don't usually think penalties should be given for the stuff that happens in the opening corners. A mistake was made, but due to any number of factors, I don't know that fault can/ought to be concretely dropped on anyone to the extent of an enforced penalty. As it was, they both had to make their way back up through the field.

I still find it a somewhat confusing notion to say that Vettel entered "too fast", when Bottas clearly entered the corner going even faster.

On a somewhat related note, I would say that for stewarding to be effective, it must also be timely, and I find it hard to see how taking an hour to review the first five corners of the race is timely.

And if we're going to rate avoiding contact as a higher priority than strict adherence to track limits, then yes, maybe the higher expectation needs shift to a driver taking to the paved run-off to avoid a collision. It's definitely a problem if we're going to send contradictory messages about what we say is valued in a racer's conduct versus what actually gets punished.

Back to the racing in wider terms, I was glad to see the moves that took place at Beausset. Again, there just aren't enough corners on the calendar that allow for this sort of mid-turn overtaking potential.

[Chaynes321]

I think the chicane was needed for overtaking but I also think a few more changes would really be beneficial in order to create more overtaking...




Comments please

[Akrapovic]

Other series can pass into those existing corners.

Paul Ricard is already pretty poor, but it's a shame that F1 comes in and absolutely destroys race tracks to improve overtaking when it's the series that has the problem, not the circuits.