Further thoughts on Baku

[ciscotex]

Long time lurker, infrequent poster. This is the first thread I think I've ever started on any forum, but I find the discourse here more intelligent than the hysteria on others.

Disclaimer: I should mention that I've only been watching F1 since 1963, so I defer to the experience and wisdom of senior fans, as well as opposing well-reasoned perspectives. I have never learned a thing when I was talking (or writing).

That said, I found the Baku race the most entertaining I've seen in ages. However, as a demented fan, I come away with a feeling that F1 either has too many rules, the media either doesn't know them or don't/can't explain them, or both.

Out of curiosity, how many of y'all knew that the first two laps of a safety car were conducted under VSC rules? This is what enabled Williams to pit Massa a lap before Stroll without loss of position for Stroll. I must admit that I watch the F1 broadcast here in the colonies on NBC Sports and miss the definitive UK broadcasts.

Second, Mark Hughes sez that Raikkonen and Perez would not have been penalized for working on the cars in the garage had they moved them into the pit lane 3 minutes prior to the end of the red flag period.

Now I feel fairly certain that at some race back in the dark ages someone was aggrieved by the lack of said rules, but from my perspective as a borderline demented fan, I find it impossible to know the rules. Hell, it's obvious that even the teams don't know some of them, eg Ferrari and Force India. Do any of y'all share my frustration?

Thirdly, the two-tire rule. I was following the race on the F1 app and it was incorrectly reporting prior to the red flag that Ricardo and Hulkenberg (I think), had only been on supersofts. Yet the tire usage data post-race seems to indicate that the red flag negated the necessity of using both compounds. Is that in fact the case? Why further complicate an already incredibly obtuse rulebook?

All of the above strike me as born out of too many rules with too many exceptions wihich get in the way of both the sport and the entertainment of F1.

Now for the biggie: The contretemps between Hamilton and Vettel. Yesterday, the FIA said it was going to have a little look-see into the fracas. Whether both parts or just the obvious one wasn't specified. I am not privy to Mercedes telemetry, but they say Lewis didn't brake-check Vettel. Of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't playing games with throttle only. Sainz sez that from where he sat, way back in the queue, they were accelerating up into 6th gear and then slamming on the brakes to avoid doing a Vettel. Games at starts and re-starts have a rich and illustrious history in motorsports. At Indy, for example, Mark Donohue once said that the front row starters would alterately accelerate and decelerate, trying to catch one of them out. Odd man of the three was the loser. While everyone is hanging on to Mercedes assertion that Hamilton didn't touch the brakes, I suspect that there is much more to the story. Btw, Sainz said the safety car re-starts were the most dangerous part of the race. It seems that the pinnacle of motorsports is unable to manage what NASCAR and Indycar do multiple times each weekend. Here, for once, I suspect a rules oversight. FIA, please don't make me sorry I said that.

Wrt Vettel's red mist moment and subsequent penalty, I don't think I'm wise enough to apportion an appropriate penalty. I"m glad I wasn't a steward. I do know of many deliberate wheel-banging moments at speed that weren't penalized, eg Rosberg on Hamilton at Spa 2 or 3 years ago, Hamilton on Rosberg COTA turn 1, and on and on. Much more dangerous than dumb safety car bang.

What concerns me though, is the FIA second-guessing their appointed stewards. I can understand that in the case of bringing the sport into disrepute, such as Vettel's outburst at Charlie in Mexico last year. But if the FIA starts doing this, I believe it will be the beginning of the end of motorsport. I don't know how many of y'all also watch NASCAR and Indycar races, but both series have seen many similar moments. They have been handled at the track or by subsequent fines, but the stewards judgment has never been second guessed as to future participation, as best I can remember. (Please bear in mind though, that with my vast experience also comes a great degree of CRS). Both Indycar and NASCAR are members of ACCUS, and thus, the FIA. If the FIA starts meddling with F1, will they stop there, or start reviewing how the good 'ole boys handle their issues, hence a slippery slope.

These are the thoughts that have struck me since watching a great race. I apologize for the long post, but am genuinely interested in whether y'all have similar thoughts or think I'm full of BS. I have my tinfoil hat on so let 'er rip.

Paul

[chillibowl]

have to say i share similar thoughts.

- too many rules to keep track of but that is one of the reasons i liked this race and sport so much. it was so unusual that rules that never get mentioned have become of central importance.

i like the complexity and i liked that i am still learning new things about the sport.

- also not sure what an acceptable penalty for SV is but i do feel he did deserve one and im pretty good with the one he got in the race. He ultimately beat LH but thats because LH had other issues as well.

- i actually like when the lead driver backs up the field as i always thought this was a skill integral to F1.

im actually quite surprised how many really think its unsporting. in all honesty it never occurred to me to think of it that way before.

-also dont like the idea of this going to special FIA hearing. its one thing to open an investigation to determine/learn how the stewards can handle this better in the future but this isnt that imo.

its always kangaroo court time over at the FIA...the suggestion that his use of bad language last year could have some bearing on this outcome is about the most ridiculous thing i have read all week (and i follow trumps twitter account!)!

[Aysedasi]

Likewise for me. I've moved on already. I don't personally feel the sanction on Vettel was severe enough, but what's done is done and needs to be left there. I saw nothing untoward or unsporting at all in what Hamilton did (if in fact he did anything aside from making Vettel look rather foolish). It's all part of the game and it's up to a following driver not to run into the one in front. What happened afterwards has been talked about enough now. Bottom line is, we were treated to an amazingly entertaining race, and I'm perfectly content to leave it there and even to ask for the same degree of entertainment again - some time soon....

[chillibowl]

right on!

to quote Jenson Button's twitter account:

Azerbaijan GP was a pleasure 2watch. Why? because adrenaline & emotions were high. What Vettel did was silly but he's been punished. Move on

https://twitter.com/JensonButton/sta...46946283720705

[Aysedasi]

So, more of the same in Austria then?

Er, I guess not........

[BSchneiderFan]

A few thoughts, by no means definitive.

- When it comes to a restart, the leader becomes the safety car. The following cars have an obligation to follow his pace, and the FIA and the stewards are satisfied that Hamilton didn't brake-test Vettel.

- Vettel's first strike was clumsy but was a racing incident. His second was deliberate and intentional. I don't care if they were travelling at 0.5 mph, you don't do that, especially if you're a quadruple World Champion that people look up to. He should have been disqualified straight away.

- Formula 1 needs to get better and clearer at restarts, safety cars and VSC. Indy and NASCAR do it every weekend (for better or worse), so it can be done.

- Hamilton dealt with the whole affair in a measured, calm and dignified way. Not always his MO, but credit where it's due.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

- Hamilton dealt with the whole affair in a measured, calm and dignified way. Not always his MO, but credit where it's due.

I agree. But sadly, for whatever reason, when Hamilton is involved the blinkers seem to come down and that credit tends not to be applied. Many would rather search for reasons why he was in the wrong instead of accepting that, on this occasion, Vettel caused the problems.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I agree. But sadly, for whatever reason, when Hamilton is involved the blinkers seem to come down and that credit tends not to be applied. Many would rather search for reasons why he was in the wrong instead of accepting that, on this occasion, Vettel caused the problems.

Tipping my head to history, do current and rabid German F1/Vettel fans refer to Hamilton as 'DME'?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Greem

Tipping my head to history, do current and rabid German F1/Vettel fans refer to Hamilton as 'DME'?

Made my day Green. I don't know whether or not they do but maybe we all should from now on?

[Kempi]

While I do not really like HAM, he did no wrong this time and handled it very well indeed. That does not answer your question, Greem, but I am at a loss what DME stands for.

[S griffin]

It's ridiculous the amount of people that can't see beyond their Hamilton hating blinkers, that what Vettel did was wrong and Lewis did not brake test him. Whatever happened to balanced views?

[BSchneiderFan]

In Formula 1, as in many aspects of life, people see what they want to see. Well, some people do. If it fits an anti-Hamilton narrative, then he was at fault for Seb crashing into the back of him (though I'd like to see an insurance company's view of that logic!).

[chillibowl]

is there a formal rule in the sorting regulations, a uniform code of race car driving standards for example, that specifically prohibits making intentional contact with another car?

'potentially dangerous' gets used a few times but i havent seen anyone cite a specific rule (and mandatory punishment) about intentional contact.

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

is there a formal rule in the sorting regulations, a uniform code of race car driving standards for example, that specifically prohibits making intentional contact with another car?

'potentially dangerous' gets used a few times but i havent seen anyone cite a specific rule (and mandatory punishment) about intentional contact.

Our governing body (the Motor Sports Association) includes these rules as part of the overall regulations:

"10.1. The Motor Sports Association expects
Competitors, and their associates, at all times to:
10.1.1. Abide by the MSA regulations.
10.1.2. Respect the decisions of event officials.
10.1.3. Treat all competitors, marshals and officials
equally with respect.
10.1.4. Maintain the highest standards of driving
behaviour.
10.1.5. Conduct themselves in a proper manner at all
times and always behave in the best interests of UK
motor sport."

And:

"1.1. Each of the following is a breach of these
Regulations and/or Supplementary Regulations and
will lead to disciplinary action being taken.

1.1.4. Any proceeding and/or act prejudicial to the
interest of the MSC and/or motor sport generally.

1.1.5. Driving in a manner incompatible with general
safety, and/or departing from the standard of a
reasonably competent driver.

14.4.5. It is not permitted to drive any car unnecessarily
slowly, erratically or in a manner deemed to be
potentially dangerous to other drivers at any time."

So although there doesn't appear to be any specific mention of contact between cars being banned, it has always to my mind been a basic principle that anything other than purely accidental contact between cars is against the spirit of the regs........

In UK "rubbin' is racin' " has not been acceptable, until the unwelcome developments in BTCC started to spread downwards to club racing.

[bauble]

14.4.5. It is not permitted to drive any car unnecessarily
slowly, erratically or in a manner deemed to be
potentially dangerous to other drivers at any time."

Hmmm?

No, I don't think VETTEL was guilty of that.

[Aysedasi]

Then I'm sorry to say, you really must have dozed off during that bit......... I forgive you though, as it happens several times to me during most GPs......

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Then I'm sorry to say, you really must have dozed off during that bit......... I forgive you though, as it happens several times to me during most GPs......

It is not permitted to drive any car unnecessarily
slowly,

Sorry Ace, it was this section I meant to underline.

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by bauble

Hmmm?

No, I don't think VETTEL was guilty of that.

Maybe you should change your name to "Bubble" as you seem to live in one ....... Even Vettel finally admitted that what he did was wrong and apologised..........only a week or so late, but lets not be churlish

[ASCII Man]

People say a lot of things to avoid further punishment.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

Maybe you should change your name to "Bubble" as you seem to live in one ....... Even Vettel finally admitted that what he did was wrong and apologised..........only a week or so late, but lets not be churlish

Oi! Don't be cheeky!

My post simply noted that Vettel was not guilty of driving too slowly. Indeed he was driving too fast and thus ran into the back of another car.

The difference between myself and virtually every other person on the planet, is that I consider the whole affair nothing but a mild spat, and barely worth a mention. To me the banging of wheels seemed relatively innocuous in the great scheme of things, far worse happens while cars are at racing speed.

I genuinely believe that Hamilton 'engineered' the situation by driving at a very slow pace under the circumstances hoping that by bunching up the field he would give those behind him problems at the restart. This is, of course, what every driver does under the safety car rules, so I am not making a case against Lewis. Certainly it would have been better had Seb not lost his rag, but he did believe that he had been brake tested. Wrongly as it turned out.

So while I do not disagree about the basic causes of the incident, I just find it incredible that it has stirred up such a storm of outrage.

I first became aware of Formula 1 in 1951, when I saw reports in an Autocar magazine that a neighbour gave me to put on a bonfire. (I still have the pictures in a scrap book). By 1952 I was completely hooked, and buying the magazine for myself, so I have been around for a long time, and seen a lot.

The Baku Incident rates hardly at all on my list of dodgy driving.

I rest my case. With apologies that I cannot get incensed by the affair.

Cheers,

Bauble

[bauble]

A man punched a driver through the window of a car during a road rage attack at a busy Beaconsfield junction on Sunday afternoon.
Thames Valley Police is appealing for witnesses following the incident which left a man, believed to be in his forties, needing hospital treatment.
Shortly after 12.30pm on July 2 the driver of a car tailgated another vehicle while beeping the horn in Ledborough Lane.
The vehicles stopped at the junction of the A355 when a man got out of a grey vehicle, believed to be a Mercedes GLA, then leaned through the widow of a black Honda CRV and punched the victim.
The victim got out of his car and was then pushed over and kicked in the face by another man who had been in the Mercedes.
The driver of the Mercedes then drove away at speed in the direction of Amersham with both attackers in the vehicle.

Seems to have started a trend

(From Bucks Free Press.)

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by bauble

Seems to have started a trend

(From Bucks Free Press.)

Trust you to find a story that you didn't have to pay for!

[bauble]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Trust you to find a story that you didn't have to pay for!

The advantage of living down South.

[VIVA GT]

I thought there must be one!

[bauble]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I thought there must be one!

Viva it is a cautionary tale. beware of people driving Mercedes.

OOPS! Sorry Bottas fans, I wasn't thinking.