Japanese Grand Prix 2019: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 17 of 21

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Leclerc really blotted his copybook this time around. Or maybe it was the team. I'm less bothered by the first lap incident as I feel drivers need to be cut a bit of extra slack in the first few corners. However not pitting immediately for a front wing change was irresponsible. It caused damage to two cars, ruined the race for one of them, and could have been a whole lot worse.

The team should be ultimately responsible and as well as Leclerc being given a time penalty, I think Ferrari should have been reprimanded for allowing him to stay out with that damaged end plate. It's all very well, Leclerc saying the car feels fine, when he couldn't see the damage. However, Ferrari could and therefore they should have insisted he come in to the pits.

[Aysedasi]

Agreed.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

I may be overdoing the conspiracy theory, but did Mercedes deliberately hobble Hamilton's strategy in order to keep him behind Bottas? Bottas is in greater need of every possible point to keep him ahead of Leclerc in the championship, whereas nothing short of catastrophe can stop Lewis winning another WDC. Realistically it shouldn't have been necessary because Lewis has a decent track record in giving up places when he can see the bigger picture. Perhaps I'm just being unduly influenced by Ferrari in Russia.

No.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Adam43

No.

I can expand on your answer:-

Definatey no.

[ascarracinguk]

Definately no. Why would they.

It’s simple. With lack of running they split the strategy to cover bases. Bottas beat Hamilton in qualifying so got the preferable strategy. Couple this with Hamilton’s ability to look after the tyres and it made perfect sense.

Bottas was quicker today and fully deserved his victory, and more importantly it’s a strategy that worked out and delivered Mercedes the constructors championship

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

I may be overdoing the conspiracy theory, but did Mercedes deliberately hobble Hamilton's strategy in order to keep him behind Bottas? Bottas is in greater need of every possible point to keep him ahead of Leclerc in the championship, whereas nothing short of catastrophe can stop Lewis winning another WDC. Realistically it shouldn't have been necessary because Lewis has a decent track record in giving up places when he can see the bigger picture. Perhaps I'm just being unduly influenced by Ferrari in Russia.

I'm not really one for conspiracy theories, though they can be intriguing. However, before going into the Japanese GP, Bottas had a 34 point lead over Leclerc. There are only 4 races left and after winning the race he now has a 53 point lead over Leclerc. So if Mercedes want to make a clean sweep of it, that's the WDC, WCC and the runner up, which they last did in 2016, then I think they would want to keep Bottas ahead of Hamilton.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Leclerc really blotted his copybook this time around. Or maybe it was the team. I'm less bothered by the first lap incident as I feel drivers need to be cut a bit of extra slack in the first few corners. However not pitting immediately for a front wing change was irresponsible. It caused damage to two cars, ruined the race for one of them, and could have been a whole lot worse.

I may be overdoing the conspiracy theory, but did Mercedes deliberately hobble Hamilton's strategy in order to keep him behind Bottas? Bottas is in greater need of every possible point to keep him ahead of Leclerc in the championship, whereas nothing short of catastrophe can stop Lewis winning another WDC. Realistically it shouldn't have been necessary because Lewis has a decent track record in giving up places when he can see the bigger picture. Perhaps I'm just being unduly influenced by Ferrari in Russia.

Leclerc seems to get quite a bit of slack, this incident with Max follows his Monza effort on Lewis.

I don't think you have a conspiracy theory at all, Hamilton would certainly have won this without the lousy strategy he was given, would have won comfortably despite the lousy strategy anyway if he hadn't been brought in for tyres at the end.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by wnut

I don't think you have a conspiracy theory at all, Hamilton would certainly have won this without the lousy strategy he was given, would have won comfortably despite the lousy strategy anyway if he hadn't been brought in for tyres at the end.

That's exactly why I'm wondering about the possibility of a conspiracy. Early on in the race, we clearly heard on the radio they were splitting strategies with Hamilton on a one-stop. Yet they pulled him in for that one stop and put on Mediums. If he had gone on Hards he could have almost certainly have got them to the end in decent shape.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

I'm less bothered by the first lap incident as I feel drivers need to be cut a bit of extra slack in the first few corners.

I disagree with this. The extra slack that is given the first few cornes is abused by certain drivers to get away with stuff they shouldnt. I'm all for given lenience for chaotic situations at the start, but not for clear situations. This situation was not chaotic at all, Max was slightly ahead through T1 and of course was still going to be there at T2. In such cases I don't think any leniency needs to be given.

That said, Verstappen shouldn't complain, he left Leclerc no room on the outside at Austria (although in less dramatic fashion). What goes around come around.

Finally I think it's also the result of the "let them race" kind of thinking. If you let it go to far this is what you get.

[Adam43]

People whinge that we don’t let the race and whinge if we do. But still let’s not forget the stewards are inconsistent.

Leclerc made a mistake, it wasn’t intentional, but he made the car understeer. He’s still making mistakes. They tend to be little, but sometimes like here or Azerbaijan qualifying they end up being bigger.

It had detracts from Verstappen’s defence on the straight. I see we are still OK with late defends. I’ve seen worse, but it’s not pleasing to the eye.

[TrapezeArtist]

I've already advocated a more lenient attitude to first corner incidents, though I can also see why people say that Leclerc wasn't in a chaotic situation and just understeered into Verstappen. If I had been one of the stewards I could probably have been persuaded either way, and that's why I can also understand why stewards appear to be inconsistent (even if they annoy the hell out of me for it).

In the past I've suggested a rigid zero-tolerance approach to track limits, contact and squeezing, more akin to the racing rules in sailing. I don't really know if it could work or not, but I'd like to see it tried.

I imagine in the first couple of races there would be penalties flying everywhere. Then there would be a couple of processional races where drivers were scared to try anything. Then perhaps they would settle down and realise that there is room to make a pass because the other driver is obliged to give room to a car that gets alongside. Perhaps.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Adam43

People whinge that we don’t let the race and whinge if we do. But still let’s not forget the stewards are inconsistent.

Leclerc made a mistake, it wasn’t intentional, but he made the car understeer. He’s still making mistakes. They tend to be little, but sometimes like here or Azerbaijan qualifying they end up being bigger.

It had detracts from Verstappen’s defence on the straight. I see we are still OK with late defends. I’ve seen worse, but it’s not pleasing to the eye.

I've argued here before in support of someone arguing you can't have rules, consistency and a "let them race" approach. Pick two but you can't have all three.

As argued I think the racing is better if racers leave each other room on track and I fear taking the "let them race" stance too far will lead to an equal number of penalties just that the offences will get more serious/dangerous. Leclerc even admitted that after Austria he would be sure he would use all the leniency he could get. Well look at his move against Hamilton in Monza or this one against Max, under the "let them race" regime he almost got away with both. To me both were completely unacceptable and should've resulted in penalties straight away.


On the Verstappen late move on the straight, that was just pay back. Agree it's not pretty on the eyes, even though it is within the rules. The sooner we don't need DRS any more, the sooner we get rid of this huge speed differences and the sooner battles for position will get more interesting.

[S griffin]

It's refreshing to see Norris saying that Albon shouldn't have been punished for his Senna on Prost style move at the Chicane, saying there wasn't even contact.

[midnight_lurker]

I might have missed it, but how on Earth did Vettel avoid the penalty for a false start?

On TV it looked like he was still braking when the lights went out.

I thought the rule was absolutely no moving after the first red light, until all the lights turn off?!?

Is it the new more flexible approach to the rules?

[Peter Mallett]

I think it was because his front wheels were behind the grid line.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by midnight_lurker

I might have missed it, but how on Earth did Vettel avoid the penalty for a false start?

On TV it looked like he was still braking when the lights went out.

I thought the rule was absolutely no moving after the first red light, until all the lights turn off?!?

Is it the new more flexible approach to the rules?

I believe if you move and then stop and you're still behind the line, then that's not a false start. If you don't stop, or you cross the line, that's a false start.

I think. Or maybe it's because it's a red car. Not sure.

[gert]

Just watched the race very much delayed.


Some cases of poor stewarding I think:

1. I can see why Leclerc is punished but
a. why do they first decide: no action necessary, and then come back on that? I can't remember seeing that ever before that the stewards alter their decision. Why did they do that? Surely not because of a Honda-backed driver kept moaning about it?
b. why don't they hand out the penalty during the race like they usually do? If they did, then surely Leclerc would not have pitted a few laps from te end, taken the time penalty and still finish 6th. They had like 50 laps to anounce it. Leclerc was robbed 2 points there.
c. I don't understand why Gasly got away with doing more or less the same on Perez

2. Don't understand why Vettel got away with the false start. Maybe Akrapovic got it right, but then agian Raikkonen got punished a few races back. Did he croos the line then? He certainly did not gain an advantage back then since he was away last IIRC after stopping after his false start?

3. No idea why Albon got away with putting Norris off.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I think it was because his front wheels were behind the grid line.

He also didn’t benefit from it. Probably the opposite.

So it was either it technically wasn’t a problem (he was stationary and in the right place at the critical moment), or the rules were applied sensibly.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I believe if you move and then stop and you're still behind the line, then that's not a false start. If you don't stop, or you cross the line, that's a false start.

I think. Or maybe it's because it's a red car. Not sure.

Whatever the stewards are inconsistent! I forget are they currently favouring Ferrari or Mercedes at the moment. Or is it Red Bull?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I believe if you move and then stop and you're still behind the line, then that's not a false start. If you don't stop, or you cross the line, that's a false start.

I think. Or maybe it's because it's a red car. Not sure.

Having a red car, can be handy.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I believe if you move and then stop and you're still behind the line, then that's not a false start. If you don't stop, or you cross the line, that's a false start.

I think. Or maybe it's because it's a red car. Not sure.

Up to now the rule has been that if you move while the lights are red, you have jumped the start.

Have to go and read the sporting code that they quoted in the decision.

The section reads:

36.13 Either of the penalties under Articles 38.3c) or d) will be imposed on any driver who is judged to have :* *

a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car, or;


You would assume that the transponder is activated when the red lights come on, so it is difficult to believe that the transponder did not register the movement. Data traces people? Once again the steward seem to be hacking their own road without precedence here.

A comprehensive explanation of the gentlemen's reasoning would be good!



From the decision the stewards reasoning would not be relevant as to the fact, the fact is established by the transponder:

Decision

No*further*action. Reason The*Stewards*reviewed*video*evidence*and*the*jump-start*report*based*on*the information*from*the*FIA*approved*and*supplied*transponder*fitted*to*each*car.

Whilst the video shows some movement that*movement*was*within*the*acceptable tolerance*of*the*F1*jump*start*system*which*formerly*defines*a*jump*start*per*Article 36.13(a)*of*the*FIA*Formula*One*Sporting*Regulations.


Perhaps the reasoning that Vettel was not out of the start box and was stopped at the point when the lights went out, starting the race, and gained no advantage has legs, but would seem to be at odds with the regulations.

[Adam43]

INCONSISTENCY!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...ret-tolerances

[steve nielsen]

Originally Posted by Adam43

People whinge that we don’t let the race and whinge if we do. But still let’s not forget the stewards are inconsistent.

Leclerc made a mistake, it wasn’t intentional, but he made the car understeer. He’s still making mistakes. They tend to be little, but sometimes like here or Azerbaijan qualifying they end up being bigger.

It had detracts from Verstappen’s defence on the straight. I see we are still OK with late defends. I’ve seen worse, but it’s not pleasing to the eye.

That defend was just a message to Leclerc I believe

[steve_r]

Common sense prevailed in the Vettel false start. He lost places of the start, so disadvantaged himself. To me it does not matter what the rules say in that instance.

LeClerc should not have been allowed to drive around with bits flapping off his car, breaking and flying into the face of the cars behind doing 200mph. That to me is even more clear cut than whether he should have received a penalty for the contact. There is also footage of him driving around 130r flat out, with one hand on the wheel and the other holding onto the flapping wing mirror. I think it is very poor that Ferrari did not bring him in, or that the meatball flag was not shown straight away. The driver himself should realised this also, or his team should have told him. I don't see it as a difficult decision.

Every race we have different driving stewards, so no wonder there is such inconsistency. I have made this point before. They did not cover themselves with glory this weekend.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Apparently the early chequered flag was a system error.

https://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/146592