[Official] Canadian Grand Prix 2019: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Wims

Vettel rejoined the track ahead, Hamilton was steaming full speed into a yellow flag situation

Steaming full speed into a yellow flag situation hahahaha so what do you want Hamilton to do, jump on the breaks mid corner and let vettel win? Or take advantage of vettels mistake? It’s vettels responsibility to rejoin safely, not Hamilton’s to slow down for his competitor

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Steaming full speed into a yellow flag situation hahahaha so what do you want Hamilton to do, jump on the breaks mid corner and let vettel win? Or take advantage of vettels mistake? It’s vettels responsibility to rejoin safely, not Hamilton’s to slow down for his competitor

Could still argue that Vettel was the leading car and entitled to take the racing line...

Very dodgy decision given previous precedents.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Was Leclerc ordered to drop back to preserve Vettel's second place? The C4 commentators seemed very confused about it. The last time I saw an interval time was about 2 laps from the end when (I think) it showed Leclerc 5.something seconds down. But was that 5 seconds behind Vettel (on the road) or 5 seconds behind Hamilton?

From lap 34 onwards, the gap between LeClerc and Vettel closed almost continuously. [from racefans.net]

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by wnut

Could still argue that Vettel was the leading car and entitled to take the racing line...

Very dodgy decision given previous precedents.

What a laughable comment. How is a car rejoining a track after making a mistake entitled to take the racing line...rules specifically prevent this.

Previous precedents....well the most recent one is this, it’s the same in pretty much every way. The result? A 5 second penalty for Max

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgOVofdZjv4

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

What a laughable comment. How is a car rejoining a track after making a mistake entitled to take the racing line...rules specifically prevent this.

Previous precedents....well the most recent one is this, it’s the same in pretty much every way. The result? A 5 second penalty for Max

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgOVofdZjv4

Max was penalised for making a decision - he was in control or what he was doing when he rejoined the track.

Vettel was penalised for a mistake - he was trying to regain control of his car as it rejoined.

Toto Wolff: If you like hard racing, this wasn't good.

Aye Toto. You're nae wrong.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Max was penalised for making a decision - he was in control or what he was doing when he rejoined the track.

Vettel was penalised for a mistake - he was trying to regain control of his car as it rejoined.

Toto Wolff: If you like hard racing, this wasn't good.

Aye Toto. You're nae wrong.

Both were penalised for not rejoining safely and directly affecting another competitor

Show me the regulation which separates out a decision from a mistake. There isn’t one. The result is the same.

I bet if it was the same incident in practice Vettel would have been off the throttle on the grass and rejoined more safely...so it WAS a decision by Vettel not to do so, he was in control of his throttle pedal.

[Akrapovic]

Lewis said that Vettel didn't lift and everyone seems to have taken that as gospel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqhX-ZzPhzo

Seems off the throttle to me. Maybe a small percentage both throttle and gas to keep the car from rotating, like rally drivers do. Despite taking a shorter route, he's losing time as well - so he can't be booting it through the grass.

We could argue until the cows come home, but as Brundle, Button and Karun said - the point in that regulation is to stop drivers who have exited the track and have regained control of the car from rejoining in a dangerous way. Not from cars making a mistake sliding about.

Max was penalised because he chose to drive there. Vettel was penalized because he made a mistake and his car naturally ended up there, which was unlucky for Lewis. And that's what it comes down to - sometimes in motorsport, luck doesn't go your way. Vettel didn't gain an advantage, but Lewis wasn't able to capitalise due to the wall being there. Had it been grass he'd be through. That's just luck. Should we penalise luck?

I also think we should give Grosjean a better starting position, because it's unlucky he lost out due to a red flag. Williams should be given a free practice all to themselves after they were unlucky with a manhole cover. And of course it is only fair that Kubica should receive a 5 second retrospective penalty for re-entering the track unsafely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZxxBIkYa44

I'll leave it there, because nobody will back down on this. I agree with the Sky F1 drivers.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Previous precedents...

Previous precedents are... all over the place. As I mentioned earlier, more offensive examples that happen on the first lap are wholly ignored even if evasive actions are taken by multiple cars. It seems the threshold is incidents results in car damage, and even then, if memory serves, the offense is causing a collision.

If it's such a black and white thing, why even have the stewards review? Or if the stewards have a place... at least admit they can get it wrong. And the vast majority as far as I can tell think they got it wrong.

Richard

[Anyopenroad]

Some of the language used on this thread does no credit to either the posters or the forum. Calling Hamilton a "thief", a "whiny b!tch" or suggesting he needs to be "smacked in the mouth" are not worthy of the knowledgeable commentary I enjoy here. Let's leave that angry crap to the cesspit of social media. It's only cars going round a track.

Hamilton's radio message (and, indeed, Mercedes complaint) are no different to a hopeful appeal for a penalty or a bowler appealing in cricket. It's the referee that makes the decision. Hamilton's radio message was very calm and asked a simple question. Every single driver and team, no exceptions, would have done the same in the situation. Using that as a stick with which to beat Hamilton is absurd.

To continue the comparison with other sports, this decision was a result of the impossibility of having both strict / consistent application of rules AND common sense / flexibility. You can't have both. If stewards are given leeway to make judgements, there will be perceived inconsistencies between incidents and teams/fans will complain. If the rules are written and applied strictly the teams/fans will complain about a lack of common sense.

The decision was correct under the letter of the rules so criticising the stewards is also silly. They were doing the job given to them and applying the rules. Emanuele Pirro is one of the nicest and most experienced people in motorsport. He deserves better.

Vettel is also getting off lightly here. It was, once again, his mistake. He makes too many, especially under pressure and especially under pressure from Hamilton. Ironically had this been a regular Tilkedrome there would have been ample space on the outside for Hamilton to go round and take the lead, which would have been a just outcome having pressured Vettel into the error.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

If it's such a black and white thing, why even have the stewards review? Or if the stewards have a place... at least admit they can get it wrong. And the vast majority as far as I can tell think they got it wrong.

Richard,

I wonder how many people actually think the stewards got it wrong, as opposed to just disagreeing with a penalty being the outcome in that situation?

mark l, I don't mean to point fingers in your direction, but the words used in your post:

Originally Posted by mark_l

I don't agree with the penalty, which I think ruined the fight for the race win.

But, I agree Car 5 did rejoin in an unsafe manner,

So by the letter of the rules, the penalty was correct.

lead me to think that the majority of criticism being aimed at the stewards in this thread is possibly off target, and should be aimed at the regulations?

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Previous precedents are... all over the place. As I mentioned earlier, more offensive examples that happen on the first lap are wholly ignored even if evasive actions are taken by multiple cars. It seems the threshold is incidents results in car damage, and even then, if memory serves, the offense is causing a collision.

If it's such a black and white thing, why even have the stewards review? Or if the stewards have a place... at least admit they can get it wrong. And the vast majority as far as I can tell think they got it wrong.

Richard

Can’t take first lap as an example, stewards have always said they treat it differently with many cars jockeying for position.

These 2 articles sum it up nicely

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/143996/vettel-steering-inputs-key-to-fia-penalty-decision

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0j3yxNJDV3o

[P38 in workshop]

It seems like a harsh penalty for a racing incident,but it does do a little to balance all the Ferrari International Assistance over the years.

[S griffin]

Well this one is going to run and run. Like Suzuka 89, I think this one will always be up for debate. Certainly it seemed Seb once again cracked under the pressure from Lewis, which is not good. It looked like him coming back on and almost colliding with Lewis, looked like a misunderstanding. However the stewards have explained he put on more lock than perhaps was needed. I feel it was a bit harsh, and although you have to be consistent with penalties, you should maybe allow a bit of leeway with these decisions. Anyway at least Vettel for once showed a bit of class once he calmed down after the race

Good to see the Renaults up there again. Ricciardo showing why Renault signed him. That said Gasly had a shocking race in the RBR, behind both Renaults, I feel he needs to get it together now

Good race from Stroll, shows he has talent, when he's up for it that is

[karting]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

What a laughable comment. How is a car rejoining a track after making a mistake entitled to take the racing line...rules specifically prevent this.

Previous precedents....well the most recent one is this, it’s the same in pretty much every way. The result? A 5 second penalty for Max

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgOVofdZjv4

Go back to 2016 when Hamilton was doing the chopping after making a mistake and going off the track on his own.

No penalty

https://youtu.be/BGzDkb3UW0w

[Akrapovic]

I have a co-worker who doesn't know much about F1, but is extremely sports orientated. Ex-Olympic sailer, downhill mountain biker etc. She asked to see the video as she'd read about it, but not seen it. I showed her it and her response was -

"That's it? That's what all the fuss is about? That was penalised? These boys need to man up"

Doesn't mean anything of course, but it's interesting to hear what others outside of the hardcore viewership think. The image that normal people have of F1 drivers being brave, on the edge and pushing the limits doesn't really stand up to the reality of "Oh you got in my way! You should be penalised!".

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I have a co-worker who doesn't know much about F1, but is extremely sports orientated. Ex-Olympic sailer, downhill mountain biker etc. She asked to see the video as she'd read about it, but not seen it. I showed her it and her response was -

"That's it? That's what all the fuss is about? That was penalised? These boys need to man up"

Doesn't mean anything of course, but it's interesting to hear what others outside of the hardcore viewership think. The image that normal people have of F1 drivers being brave, on the edge and pushing the limits doesn't really stand up to the reality of "Oh you got in my way! You should be penalised!".

Personally I think leaving each other room on track is one of the required conditions for having good wheel to wheel battles. If once F1 returns to a state where wheel to wheel battles are actually somewhat likely occur again I feel stewards may be quite strict in the interest of good racing.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I have a co-worker who doesn't know much about F1, but is extremely sports orientated. Ex-Olympic sailer, downhill mountain biker etc. She asked to see the video as she'd read about it, but not seen it. I showed her it and her response was -

"That's it? That's what all the fuss is about? That was penalised? These boys need to man up"

Doesn't mean anything of course, but it's interesting to hear what others outside of the hardcore viewership think. The image that normal people have of F1 drivers being brave, on the edge and pushing the limits doesn't really stand up to the reality of "Oh you got in my way! You should be penalised!".

I am very surprised that an ex-Olympic sailor would have that viewpoint. In sailing, if two boats touch (just touch!) one of them is going to have to take a penalty. And there are clear rules for which one it will be. I have long believed that motor racing could learn a thing or two from the ISAF rulebook.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I wonder how many people actually think the stewards got it wrong, as opposed to just disagreeing with a penalty being the outcome in that situation?

Is there a difference? I am not sure what differentiation you are looking for. The two go hand in hand. Ultimately it's about the total steward ruling with clearly the punishment being the part that really matters as that is the part that is impactful.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Can’t take first lap as an example, stewards have always said they treat it differently with many cars jockeying for position.

Why so quick to disregard the argument? I think it is absolutely on point. Particularly with respect to precedents being set and how stewards should act.

There is and has been a very public push to allow the racers to... race. It has been identified as a problem with the sport.

The "exception to the rule" that is applied to the first lap (especially the first corner) is exactly the type of thing the stewards should be doing in this situation. Instead of slavishly following the letter of the rules, use that same type of judgement that applies to the chaos of the first lap. The default should be to give the offender the benefit of doubt.

The way things work now with respect to policing driver behavior is a very medical style "false positive" stance. That they will over punish to ensure that ALL offenders get some type of punishment (at the risk of punishing those who are not actually guilty or over punishing them). Of course this only applies after the first lap of which it is very much a "false negative" stance in which only the blatant offenses are punished.

The rules could absolutely be applied to the first lap, first corner in a "false positive" stance. Offender identified and penalties doled out! The reason they are not is because there would be massive uproar.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Personally I think leaving each other room on track is one of the required conditions for having good wheel to wheel battles. If once F1 returns to a state where wheel to wheel battles are actually somewhat likely occur again I feel stewards may be quite strict in the interest of good racing.

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

I am very surprised that an ex-Olympic sailor would have that viewpoint. In sailing, if two boats touch (just touch!) one of them is going to have to take a penalty. And there are clear rules for which one it will be. I have long believed that motor racing could learn a thing or two from the ISAF rulebook.

I'm not saying I agree (or disagree) with her standpoint. I just thought it was interesting from an outside perspective. The image of F1 doesn't really match the reality. Might be worth noting that she dropped sailing asap because of the nonsense surrounding it and now does irons mans and downhill mountain biking because there's far less BS.

Not saying shes right - it's just an interesting observation.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Is there a difference? I am not sure what differentiation you are looking for. The two go hand in hand.

The difference - as I see it - is:

a) The regulations state that an act of a driver would be a discretion.
b) The stewards choose to interpret the regulations in such a way that they feel a penalty is to be awarded.

Are those complaining about the penalty saying:
a) Vettel re-joined the track when it was safe to do so, and so the stewards were wrong to award a penalty for breach of regulations?
b) Vettel failed to re-join the track when it was safe to do so, but the stewards should have ignored regulation 27.3?

The regulations make reference to not deliberately leaving the track. Once the driver has left the track, the regulations do not differentiate between deliberate or unavoidable return to the track. Only that the driver may re-join if safe to do so.

IMO, the stewards were entirely right to award a penalty, because a breach of regulation 27.3 occurred. But, the relevant part of regulation 27.3 should be rewritten to something such as:

'Should a car leave the track, when the car re-joins the track under control of the driver, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage.' This would also exempt drivers from any blame when they have lost control due to failure or the actions of another driver.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

b) Vettel failed to re-join the track when it was safe to do so, but the stewards should have ignored regulation 27.3?

Ultimately you are asking if the stewards have the ability to use their judgement. You use the phrase "ignored regulation 27.3". Which implies they can arbitrarily decide to apply or not apply the rules.

The rules enforcement be it technical or sporting are regularly not enforced to the letter. I would argue that this is a very practical solution. Take the technical regulations that forbid movable aero surfaces. The aero surfaces of the car are not perfectly fixed to the chassis. They flex, they vibrate, etc. Just watch a front wing bounce in the slow motion shots. The teams are CLEARLY in violation of the rules. However it's impracticable to enforce to the letter. So you either massage the lettering (as you suggest below) or you have an understanding that the rule is enforced when there is some level of violation that crosses some "invisible boundary". It's the classic... you know pornography when you see it type of thing. With respect to the movable aero rule, generally the teams know where this boundary exists.

I think many (most?) people feel the punishment didn't fit the crime. Regardless of how that would have went, someone would be unhappy. Hamilton fans and Ferrari haters would have been upset, etc.

To directly answer your question (I think)... they should have done what would have been viewed as "most fair" within the boundaries of the rule, within their allowable judgement call and driven by current intent by the sport to "let them race". Which includes... not handing out punishment even if you could justify doing so by the letter of the rule.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

IMO, the stewards were entirely right to award a penalty, because a breach of regulation 27.3 occurred.

I would argue "right to award" is a personal opinion. I would say the more objective and defensible answer would be "within their right to award".

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But, the relevant part of regulation 27.3 should be rewritten to something such as:

'Should a car leave the track, when the car re-joins the track under control of the driver, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage.' This would also exempt drivers from any blame when they have lost control due to failure or the actions of another driver.

This goes to my point above. You can handle the grey areas in two ways. You can try to clarify the rules or you can just judgement calls. Given the sport already does both, and I would argue the sport "knows" it must always allow for judgement calls, then there is also the ability to use judgement calls in cases like this. And I think that is why they have a panel of stewards to discuss and pass judgement. Why not just have one guy do it. Why do they need to discuss it?

In the end... my opinion is... they got it wrong and badly so. Not everyone will agree. I mention the use of an "invisible boundary" which is used by those who adjudicate the rules. Given the push to let drivers race, I think the stewards got the boundary badly wrong. Which is surprising given the push to move that boundary.

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Ultimately you are asking if the stewards have the ability to use their judgement. You use the phrase "ignored regulation 27.3". Which implies they can arbitrarily decide to apply or not apply the rules.

The rules enforcement be it technical or sporting are regularly not enforced to the letter. I would argue that this is a very practical solution. Take the technical regulations that forbid movable aero surfaces. The aero surfaces of the car are not perfectly fixed to the chassis. They flex, they vibrate, etc. Just watch a front wing bounce in the slow motion shots. The teams are CLEARLY in violation of the rules. However it's impracticable to enforce to the letter. So you either massage the lettering (as you suggest below) or you have an understanding that the rule is enforced when there is some level of violation that crosses some "invisible boundary". It's the classic... you know pornography when you see it type of thing. With respect to the movable aero rule, generally the teams know where this boundary exists.

I think many (most?) people feel the punishment didn't fit the crime. Regardless of how that would have went, someone would be unhappy. Hamilton fans and Ferrari haters would have been upset, etc.

To directly answer your question (I think)... they should have done what would have been viewed as "most fair" within the boundaries of the rule, within their allowable judgement call and driven by current intent by the sport to "let them race". Which includes... not handing out punishment even if you could justify doing so by the letter of the rule.


I would argue "right to award" is a personal opinion. I would say the more objective and defensible answer would be "within their right to award".


This goes to my point above. You can handle the grey areas in two ways. You can try to clarify the rules or you can just judgement calls. Given the sport already does both, and I would argue the sport "knows" it must always allow for judgement calls, then there is also the ability to use judgement calls in cases like this. And I think that is why they have a panel of stewards to discuss and pass judgement. Why not just have one guy do it. Why do they need to discuss it?

In the end... my opinion is... they got it wrong and badly so. Not everyone will agree. I mention the use of an "invisible boundary" which is used by those who adjudicate the rules. Given the push to let drivers race, I think the stewards got the boundary badly wrong. Which is surprising given the push to move that boundary.

Richard

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

To continue the comparison with other sports, this decision was a result of the impossibility of having both strict / consistent application of rules AND common sense / flexibility. You can't have both. If stewards are given leeway to make judgements, there will be perceived inconsistencies between incidents and teams/fans will complain. If the rules are written and applied strictly the teams/fans will complain about a lack of common sense.

As above, sometimes we call for judgement calls, other times we complain about inconsistency. You can't have it both ways.


P.S. I was more annoyed with the on podium: "What does this mean for your relationship?" question than any thing else on or of the track.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I have a co-worker who doesn't know much about F1, but is extremely sports orientated. Ex-Olympic sailer, downhill mountain biker etc...

but surely in those sports, going out of bounds, regardless of whether or not it was an accident or mistake, is an automatic disqualification no?

i want to say that those sorts of sports are even less forgiving if someone is forced out. the guilty party is punished of course, but even the victim of the force out is still out of the race.

just making a general point to no one in specific, but a race is a race and the moment we start down the path of trying to justify reasons for breaking the boundary lines of a race then maybe we have all lost the plot.

out of bounds is out of bounds.

anyways, i can appreciate the frustration given that many many drivers, LH included, have a a very lose sense of track limits. its hard to watch something where the rules are always changing before our eyes.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

That's not how the stewards see it.

'A second steering wheel input from Sebastian Vettel after he regained control of his Ferrari Formula 1 car was pivotal in his Canadian Grand Prix penalty [...] rather than keeping to the left, Vettel is shown to release the steering wheel - which allows his car to drift to the right,

[CCTV footage] showing Vettel moving his head and looking in the mirrors to see Hamilton was during the moments when he was releasing the wheel to the right.

On board footage of the Vettel incident also shows his head turning towards the mirrors in the moment when he is drifting out - suggesting he knew where Hamilton was.'

If the telemetry confirms he was trying to preserve his lead when he rejoined the track, then he deserves his penalty.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by karting

Go back to 2016 when Hamilton was doing the chopping after making a mistake and going off the track on his own.

No penalty

https://youtu.be/BGzDkb3UW0w

Entirely different situation/ scenario. Hamilton rejoined the track safely and then took his racing line leaving a cars width, he didn’t do as Vettel did and force a car off the race track.

Makes me laugh how people are using that video as an example