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

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by MCWB

Isn't that the point though? For me, that Lewis had to get out of it to avoid Seb coming back onto the track says, ipso facto, that it was an unsafe rejoin. I'm not sure whether it's worth a 5 s penalty though...

I thought Vettel rejoined the track ahead of but also along side Hamilton?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Lewis: All I can say is, I didn't make the decision.

This is true. But he did ask for it.

Neither were looking for a fight when being interviewed afterwards. Which is good.

It was the stewards who chose this decision. Lewis did ask for it though. This is the standard response nowadays, drivers complain and whinge to try and get the stewards to give them a decision. One of them got their wish this time

[Akrapovic]

Wolff: The rules are black and white.

Brundle: If driver A cuts over drive B because he's out of control, is that a penalty?

Wolff: I'm not going to argue with you because it's never black and white.

--

I've never seen Wolff so uncomfortable. He's going to need a ladder to get out of this hole.

[broadrun96]

It seems like this is one of the dumber things stewards have ever done, and there's been some dumb moves in the past. It makes IMSA seem same at times and they've made decisions where you wonder what they were watching. Supposedly pinnacle of racing but a driver can't figure out that a car won't fit in a tight track next to a car coming back on. Even if it's unsafe coming back on, you put yourself in a tight spot. Personally wish he would have stayed in it and slammed the wall. It was a zero percent pass and getting the stewards to award him the win, and hearing MB celebrate after saying all they wanted was a race on the track shows they really don't. They want to win, fine but don't lie about it. Hope the new rules screw them and both MB and Ferrari leave FOR. It needs a complete overhaul

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

It seems like this is one of the dumber things stewards have ever done, and there's been some dumb moves in the past. It makes IMSA seem same at times and they've made decisions where you wonder what they were watching. Supposedly pinnacle of racing but a driver can't figure out that a car won't fit in a tight track next to a car coming back on. Even if it's unsafe coming back on, you put yourself in a tight spot. Personally wish he would have stayed in it and slammed the wall. It was a zero percent pass and getting the stewards to award him the win, and hearing MB celebrate after saying all they wanted was a race on the track shows they really don't. They want to win, fine but don't lie about it. Hope the new rules screw them and both MB and Ferrari leave FOR. It needs a complete overhaul

Spot on for me.

Had Seb not stuck in the opposite lock that ran him wide, he'd have hit Lewis and the wall and they'd both be out. So really we're in a position where the mistake itself is penalised.

Vettel would've been better off having the accident at that point.

Sky fan tweets are predictable as always. "Vettel cheated". Amazed that got read out on TV.

[Purist]

So, on ABC (Sky feed), they're looking at the incident, and on NBC, they're doing a special about Lance Armstrong.

I liked Karun's comment that there should be grass at the side of every track.

Hamilton's comment of "If there wasn't a wall there..." was telling.

On that note, I'll ust take what the 20+season CART Chief Steward, Wally Dallenbach, Sr., would have said. "Treat the edge of the track as if there is a wall there." Maybe harsh by current standards, but fair, and Dallenbach was almost never mentioned by name on the TV broadcasts.

If you want good racing, you can't penalize mistakes like this. Such a penalty would have been warranted for something like what Tagliani did with the paved run-off at Watkins Glen in IMSA a few years back, or one of the PCs did rejoining during Sebring in perhaps the same season, but not for this.

Seriously, if a guy loses control like that, but stays on a paved surface, or even stays between the white lines, but we get a similar close call, should that be a penalty, too?

Also, earlier, there was that overtake involving the Haas where the driver was forced to take to the T1 paved run-off for the other car to have enough space not to make contact. Why wasn't that penalized, but this was?

[mark_l]

Originally Posted by karting

Seb, what a boy with the signs!

I think the Stewards will take a dim view of Vettel's actions after the race.

Failing to follow Race Directors Event Notes 24.2

Also messing about with the signs, he could be fined for not respecting the reputation of the sport. Schumacher, Barrichello & Ferrari got in to hot water over messing about on the podium in Austria in 2002.

Could be quite a substantial fine for Seb.

[Akrapovic]

Good thing he didn't do anything serious, then he'd get a real penalty.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Vettel overshot the braking and went to the inside of the apex which at this corner was grass. Does he ...

a/ lift off or brake possibly causing instability in the car resulting in a bigger incident
b/ try to turn the car whilst on the grass to come back onto the track away from the racing line possibly causing instability and a bigger incident
c/ Keep the wheel as straight as possible aiming to return back onto the track and then sort it out.

By doing "c" he get penalised because on coming back on the tyres gripped and the whole car twitched across onto the racing line in front of Hamilton.

The penalty according to the TV graphics was for apparently forcing Hamilton off track by Vettel's unsafe return...but there's a wall on the outside of that corner. If Hamilton left the track he would have hit the wall ???

The FIA website hasn't updated with any of the Stewards reports from the race yet, it'll be interesting to get the exact wording of the penalty.

Edit:

Car 5 left the track, re-joined unsafely and forced another car off track.
Involved in an incident as defined by Article 38.1 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.
5 second time penalty
(2 point awarded, 7 points in total for the 12 month period)
The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5,left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formu...information-13

[Compromised]

Worst part is, Lewis will still be champion, regardless off if he came 1st or 2nd. Why court controversy in such a 50/50 situation?

[mark_l]

https://www.fia.com/file/82120/download

Vettel penalty report

[Adam43]

The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5,left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

Nothing about Vettel doing his best not to crash (but that isn't in the rule). Says it forced no.44 off track (but there is a wall). But it is a judgement call.

Interesting it also states that

Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

This is not one of the certain decisions. Why mention, when you can't?! Article 38.3 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations:

...If any of the seven penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal

This is one of the seven.

[Akrapovic]

Vettel would have had to crash to avoid the penalty.

Well I guess the result of that would’ve been more entertaining, natural and less irritating than what we had.

[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, although it was hard to work out how else he could rejoin as he was out of control and had insufficient distance to regain control before rejoining.

I agree Car 44 had to take evasive action, by braking.

So by the letter of the rules, the penalty was correct. This sets a dangerous precedent now for other races, Grosjean had better look out.

[sparkione]

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, although it was hard to work out how else he could rejoin as he was out of control and had insufficient distance to regain control before rejoining.

I agree Car 44 had to take evasive action, by braking.

So by the letter of the rules, the penalty was correct. This sets a dangerous precedent now for other races, Grosjean had better look out.

Had Seb applied more left lock as he left the grass, to leave Lewis more space to pass, he would probably have spun, with even more dire consequences. It was a 'racing incident', and badly interpreted by the stewards.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I found footage of the incident here, https://www.foxsportsasia.com/videos...-unsafe-entry/

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by sparkione

Had Seb applied more left lock as he left the grass, to leave Lewis more space to pass, he would probably have spun, with even more dire consequences. It was a 'racing incident', and badly interpreted by the stewards.

That is how I saw it at the time, a racing incident.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by mark_l

But, I agree Car 5 did rejoin in an unsafe manner, although it was hard to work out how else he could rejoin as he was out of control and had insufficient distance to regain control before rejoining.

And that is the point summed up nicely there. There was no other option. Anything else would’ve been an accident, most likely collecting Lewis. So to completely comply with the regulations, Vettel should’ve crashed into Lewis.

So he was penalised for doing his best to avoid an an accident after making a mistake.

Let’s take a moment to let that sink in.

[ascarracinguk]

It’s an interesting one. Had this happened at say The last corner at Donington, Lewis had been crowded off the track then it would be a penalty 100% of the time. But in this case most feel like it was harsh. So the question is, are the rules badly written, or badly applied. Being black and white, do they allow stewards room to take into consideration track geography etc. Lets not forget the max/ Kimi incident at Suzuka last year resulted in the same penalty so the stewards are being consistent

[Akrapovic]

Certainly the rule was badly applied. It’s intended for drivers who have spun or left the track who then are in control of the car and make a decision to rejoin in an unsafe way. I think we all agree that that is a good rule to have.

Vettel didn’t make a decision - he was busy trying to save the car. The fact his rejoining was unsafe (or safe, had it gone that way) is just a result of trying not to crash. That’s clearly not the situation the rule was intended for, even if it meets the criteria for a penalty by the letter of the law.

The counter argument to that is it’s his fault - he made the mistake and left the road. And that’s true. But that means the 5s penalty was applied for commiting a mistake. The same mistake would’ve been made without a car behind - would that not be penalised? So we only apply the rule when cars are close? That doesn’t seem fair? If Vettel was 2 seconds ahead that’s not a penalty?

Good rule. Badly applied. Grosjean should be terrified at this implementation, as he’s going to end up with 85 seconds one day.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Certainly the rule was badly applied. It’s intended for drivers who have spun or left the track who then are in control of the car and make a decision to rejoin in an unsafe way. I think we all agree that that is a good rule to have.

Vettel didn’t make a decision - he was busy trying to save the car. The fact his rejoining was unsafe (or safe, had it gone that way) is just a result of trying not to crash. That’s clearly not the situation the rule was intended for, even if it meets the criteria for a penalty by the letter of the law.

The counter argument to that is it’s his fault - he made the mistake and left the road. And that’s true. But that means the 5s penalty was applied for commiting a mistake. The same mistake would’ve been made without a car behind - would that not be penalised? So we only apply the rule when cars are close? That doesn’t seem fair? If Vettel was 2 seconds ahead that’s not a penalty?

Good rule. Badly applied. Grosjean should be terrified at this implementation, as he’s going to end up with 85 seconds one day.

It’s an interesting debate. Throw another curveball, if there was no grass and it was tarmac run off, Vettel would have gained an advantage and would have been penilised too.

I think amongst all the discussion the point that’s being lost somewhat is that Hamilton forced yet another error from Vettel, it was his mistake that rightly or wrongly led to the penalty

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Certainly the rule was badly applied. It’s intended for drivers who have spun or left the track who then are in control of the car and make a decision to rejoin in an unsafe way. I think we all agree that that is a good rule to have.

Agree.

It's a sad situation for F1. The sport is trying to improve racing and the spectacle for the fans but continue to shoot itself in the foot. If this is a "rules is rules" moment, I call BS as the stewards will gladly cover their eyes during the first lap. For example I think one of the Haas jumped right out in front of cars after short cutting the first corner. I am not saying the Haas should be penalized, but rather they should use their brains when deciding these things. No doubt their excuse will be "our hands were tied".

Its stuff like this that causes me to question my investment of personal time in the sport. I was considering going to this GP next year with the wife (her first). So we watched this race together today to prep for next year. There was no way I could explain the penalty outside steward shenanigans and/or incompetence. Overall... I just can't see me investing time and money to attend in person if this type of stuff is likely to happen. It just leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

Richard

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Purist

So, on ABC (Sky feed), they're looking at the incident, and on NBC, they're doing a special about Lance Armstrong.

I liked Karun's comment that there should be grass at the side of every track.

Hamilton's comment of "If there wasn't a wall there..." was telling.

On that note, I'll ust take what the 20+season CART Chief Steward, Wally Dallenbach, Sr., would have said. "Treat the edge of the track as if there is a wall there." Maybe harsh by current standards, but fair, and Dallenbach was almost never mentioned by name on the TV broadcasts.

Remember Dallenbach, and the family as a whole, is known for racing on a surface where no wall is needed. You go off at Pike's Peak, you pay the price.

[Purist]

Perhaps, but it still worked rather well in CART.

The main mention I can think of was the 1995 race at Surfers Paradise. Gil de Ferran passed Jacques Villeneuve into the left/right chicane in the middle of the back, but couldn't keep it on the road through the right-hand part of it, and so had to give the place back for short-cutting the course.

More to the relevance here though is that Wally held that view as the Chief Steward, but was regarded as fair and consistent, and thus respected in his position. Hence, there were hardly any mentions of him on TV even in cases when a penalty was applied.

Back to the main focus here, it's dangerous to make the driver's choice, if he's actually going to push, one of a penalty or a crash. As for mistakes, every one of Hamilton's lock-ups into the hairpin was a "mistake" on his part, and ones made without him having any pressure coming from behind.

[Adam43]

So there might be an appeal. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...vettel-penalty
Not that there can be one, but hey, perhaps the ruling should have confirmed that rather than leave it open