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

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

When Vettel rejoins, one thing that is a fact is that there is a movement of the steering wheel to the right. What is questionable is whether that was to correct the car or to put the car on the racing line and defend the position.

[/url]

The whole thing is a non event and anyone who has raced would do what Vettel did and that was to squeeze Hamilton against the wall. He knew exactly what Hamilton was going to do and so he stopped him doing it. From the moment Vettel lost the rear in the previous corner Hamilton knew what he wanted to do and Vettel wasn't having any of it. If a few more fans had race experience they would appreciate that is what happens every week in racing.

[Born Racer]

Oh, I totally agree it happens in racing. Personally, I do have race experience and wasn't disqualified for doing a similar thing to what Vettel did.

I think within the rules as they are, the stewards acted correctly. My own reaction is telling in terms of how I dealt with the incident. At first I thought 'such a pity' about the penalty and 'don't like that decision', caught up in the adrenaline of the action somewhat, rather like a driver would be. Then, when the juices flowed less post-race and I saw the onboard again, I could understand the decision based on the rules.

So it raises several questions:

Do we want these quite generally-worded rules which lead to their being applied on so many occasions, even when the race action did not result in an incident (i.e. this was a great moment of racing which both drivers handled well in the moment)?

Do we want stewards to use some other kind of factors in their decision-making and morning apply the rule book so vigorously?

Are there some rules where they should be more flexible (e.g. in 'forcing another driver off the track' incidents, where there is often huge inconsistency in penalty application), but where conversely, it feels so anti-racing to see so many penalties applied these days?

[sizzle]

Why does everyone keep saying the stewards looked at the telemetry, they didn't. They looked at TV footage whether that be the same as we saw or some purported additional CCTV from somewhere.

For me it was a racing incident, let them race.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by sizzle

Why does everyone keep saying the stewards looked at the telemetry, they didn't. They looked at TV footage whether that be the same as we saw or some purported additional CCTV from somewhere.

For me it was a racing incident, let them race.

Personally, as I've said before, I'm not convinced the "let them race" approach is guaranteed to lead to better racing.

I've always enjoyed battles for position most where all involved drivers left each other room on track. Leaving another driver enough room when overtaking is harder to do and this improves racing for two reasons:

1 The side by side battles will last longer because you can't just force your way through.

2 It requires more skill from both drivers. The battle for position will thus become more interesting.


I would find it interesting to see what would happen if stewarding would get very strict on leaving another car enough room on track at all times to see if it actually would improve racing. I'm not saying it should happen, drivers and fans alike would be whining for ages, but as an experiment I would find it interesting.

[Kempi]

Vettel made a mistake again. That is the worrying part of the situation, as an F1 fan but even more as a Ferrari fan. Because if he keeps doing these, the car must be more dominant than the Mercedes is right now to win something.

On the penalty: I have concerns with the stewards' reasoning: either it was an unsafe reentry and he should have been more careful (however that should be). But then you cannot argue that you looked at a second steering movement when he appeared to be in control again.

Because if he is in control, then he is racing and defending and is entitled to move as long as he leaves a car space. If he did not do that that might be a penalty as well, but it is a different one.

[S griffin]

Here comes yet more clarification at the next driver's briefing. That's what usually happens in this situation

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Skam85

And of course now we are onto how poor old Lewis is constantly the victim.

How terribly predictable.

oh dear......

[crmalcolm]

Jolyon Palmer outlines why he feels the penalty was correct and justified:

'He either crowded another driver off the circuit - Hamilton into the wall on the exit of Turn Four, to the point where the Mercedes driver had to anchor on the brakes to avoid a collision.

Or, as his defence said, his natural momentum took him across the full width of the circuit. But in that case he is guilty of rejoining the circuit in an unsafe manner, as he was not in full control of his car, to the extent that he ran Hamilton off the road in an unsafe manner.

One of these scenarios has to be correct.

If he was forced to run all the way into Hamilton, that's not safe. If he wasn't, then he deliberately did it, and that's not fair and deserves a penalty.'

The article also refers to Vettel's comments when Verstappen was penalised for returning to the track in an unsafe manner at Japan 2018 having made a mistake at the chicane.

Vettel said then: "Look at [the incident with] Kimi, [Verstappen]'s off the track and he comes back and if Kimi just drives on they'd collide. But it's not always right that the other guy has to move."

A description of that incident is given as:
'It was caused by Verstappen locking up his right front tyre as he hit the brakes, under pressure from Raikkonen. He cut the corner, and on rejoining, bounced over the apex kerb on the left. That launched his car into an understeer and across the track, forcing Raikkonen even wider and off on his right-hand side.

Verstappen was given a five-second penalty for the move,'

Which could quite easily be re-written as:
'It was caused by Vettel losing control of his rear as he hit the brakes, under pressure from Hamilton. He cut the corner, and on rejoining, the lack of grip launched his car into an understeer and across the track, forcing Hamilton even wider and off on his right-hand side.

Vettel was given a five-second penalty for the move,'

If Vettel thinks that the penalty for Verstappen was justified, then surely he must accept his own penalty?

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Oh, I totally agree it happens in racing. Personally, I do have race experience and wasn't disqualified for doing a similar thing to what Vettel did.

If we're thinking of the same incident, I think you were excluded.

[Compromised]

Montreal 19. Vettel makes a mistake, cuts a corner, comes back on track close enough to Lewis that he is forced to back off, handing Vettel the advantage. Penalty

Mexico 16. Lewis makes a mistake, cuts arguably more than one corner, comes back on track far enough ahead that there is zero danger to Rosberg. Lewis has the advantage (a much larger one than Vettel above). No penalty.

Everyone ok with that?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Compromised

Montreal 19. Vettel makes a mistake, cuts a corner, comes back on track close enough to Lewis that he is forced to back off, handing Vettel the advantage. Penalty

Mexico 16. Lewis makes a mistake, cuts arguably more than one corner, comes back on track far enough ahead that there is zero danger to Rosberg. Lewis has the advantage (a much larger one than Vettel above). No penalty.

Everyone ok with that?

Yes.

One incident refers to a penalty for rejoining the track in an unsafe manner.
The other incident refers to a non-penalty for not gaining any lasting advantage.

The reason why Hamilton's incident in 2016 was not awarded a penalty?
'F1 race director Charlie Whiting and the race stewards were comfortable that Hamilton had not gained a ‘lasting advantage’ from the incident.

Indeed, the fact that Hamilton backed off, as was proven by telemetry readings that they saw, meant there was no doubt the Briton did not deserve a punishment.'


There are two key words that make the two incidents incomparable - safe and lasting.

[gert]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Jolyon Palmer outlines why he feels the penalty was correct and justified:

'He either crowded another driver off the circuit - Hamilton into the wall on the exit of Turn Four, to the point where the Mercedes driver had to anchor on the brakes to avoid a collision.

Or, as his defence said, his natural momentum took him across the full width of the circuit. But in that case he is guilty of rejoining the circuit in an unsafe manner, as he was not in full control of his car, to the extent that he ran Hamilton off the road in an unsafe manner.

One of these scenarios has to be correct.

If he was forced to run all the way into Hamilton, that's not safe. If he wasn't, then he deliberately did it, and that's not fair and deserves a penalty.'

I have read Jolyon's opinion too and I didn't agree with it, but couldn't really write down in a coherent way why.
I think kempi did that for me.

Originally Posted by Kempi

On the penalty: I have concerns with the stewards' reasoning: either it was an unsafe reentry and he should have been more careful (however that should be). But then you cannot argue that you looked at a second steering movement when he appeared to be in control again.

Because if he is in control, then he is racing and defending and is entitled to move as long as he leaves a car space. If he did not do that that might be a penalty as well, but it is a different one.

When a driver leaves the track and rejoins there is a point in time when he regains control. If he defended the position after he regained full control of the car, then we have a situation that Jolyon does not take into account.
Thus, IMO the "One of these scenarios has to be correct" is false.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by gert

When a driver leaves the track and rejoins there is a point in time when he regains control. If he defended the position after he regained full control of the car, then we have a situation that Jolyon does not take into account.

That's the first scenario Palmer describes (I took 'crowded' to mean a deliberate action, deliberate in this case being an instinctive rather than consciously pre-meditated move). This is certainly what Hamilton thinks happened and from the stewards reasoning this is what they think happened as well. There may well be a case that this means, as Kempi says, that the penalty was for the wrong thing. But it would still be a penalty - a clearer one in fact, as it negates the argument that Vettel had no way to avoid baulking Hamilton.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by gert

When a driver leaves the track and rejoins there is a point in time when he regains control. If he defended the position after he regained full control of the car, then we have a situation that Jolyon does not take into account.

In the image below, whether this is before or after Vettel has regained control, he has not left a car's width for Hamilton.
There is a difference between defending a position and forcing a car off the track.
This is clarified by the stewards' report. '[Car 5] forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.'

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by gert

I have read Jolyon's opinion too and I didn't agree with it, but couldn't really write down in a coherent way why.

The drivers intent and the intent of the regulation is what it comes down to for me.

Did Vettel intend to rejoin the track unsafely? No. His car naturally went that way because of the shape of the corner and he was still regaining control.

Did Vettel intend to force Lewis off the track? No. His car naturally went that way because of the shape of the corner and he was still regaining control.

Is that illegal by the letter of the regulations? Technically yes. He rejoined unsafely.

Is that the intention of the regulation? That's not what I understood it to be - I understood it to be that a driver who makes a deliberate action when rejoining the racing surface that is dangerous could be penalised. The rule has been used to punish a mistake, rather than an intended action.

If that's illegal and that's how we're going to use the rule then that's fine - but it makes defending a position even more difficult now. If a mistake doesn't cost you the place, the chances are you'll be penalised for it anyway. F1 makes it very hard for the drivers to race because now even mistakes under extreme pressure can be subjected to a penalty. I've never seen that in any other series, and I can't see it being implemented.

[Kempi]

The big difference to RAI/VER in Suzuka is that Verstappen did not have to go through gras. He was in full control at all times and chose not to run the predetermined detour for those that misjudged braking but cut over the curb intentionally. Otherwise he would not have been in a position to "defend" against RAI.

Here we had gras in the runoff which had much more affect on being able to control your car.

But in the ned: if VET does not make that mistake there is no discussion. It was not even wheel to wheel but simply driving hard. There is too many of those mistakes occuring.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The drivers intent and the intent of the regulation is what it comes down to for me.

Did Vettel intend to rejoin the track unsafely? No. His car naturally went that way because of the shape of the corner and he was still regaining control.

Did Vettel intend to force Lewis off the track? No. His car naturally went that way because of the shape of the corner and he was still regaining control.

Is that illegal by the letter of the regulations? Technically yes. He rejoined unsafely.

Is that the intention of the regulation? That's not what I understood it to be - I understood it to be that a driver who makes a deliberate action when rejoining the racing surface that is dangerous could be penalised. The rule has been used to punish a mistake, rather than an intended action.

If that's illegal and that's how we're going to use the rule then that's fine - but it makes defending a position even more difficult now. If a mistake doesn't cost you the place, the chances are you'll be penalised for it anyway. F1 makes it very hard for the drivers to race because now even mistakes under extreme pressure can be subjected to a penalty. I've never seen that in any other series, and I can't see it being implemented.

I know that this is how it looked, but I am sure that I've read that the reason the stewards made the decision that they did is that (from telemetry) they could see that once Seb regained control of his car her stopped steering left (the way the track was going) and opened his steering allowing the car to move further out towards the edge of the track. I am also sure that I have read that they watched footage of the incident (I don't know if this was the race feed or additional cameras which apparently race control has access to) and could see Seb checking his mirrors whilst this was all going on and therefore he knew where Lewis was. I believe it has been stated that these were the reasons why they applied the penalty.

[gert]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In the image below, whether this is before or after Vettel has regained control, he has not left a car's width for Hamilton.
There is a difference between defending a position and forcing a car off the track.
This is clarified by the stewards' report. '[Car 5] forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.'

And what if the picture would have been taken a lap earlier?
Would you still label that as "Vettel is forcing Hamilton off the track" or would you label it as "Hamilton seems to be going for a gap that is simply not there, or will not open up" ?

[S griffin]

If Vettel said that Max deserved a penalty for what he did to Kimi at Suzuka, then he can’t use the defence of ‘I was not under control.’ He should know better

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by gert

And what if the picture would have been taken a lap earlier?
Would you still label that as "Vettel is forcing Hamilton off the track" or would you label it as "Hamilton seems to be going for a gap that is simply not there, or will not open up" ?

If that picture was from a lap previous, and Hamilton had not had to back off to avoid collision, and Vettel had remained on the track, then yes I would agree that Hamilton seems to be going for a gap that is simply not there.

But that is not the case. The gap was there, and Hamilton was entitled to go for it. Vettel's car then closed the gap after Hamilton had got alongside - forcing Hamilton off the track. Regardless of whether Vettel had left the track or not, there was a gap that was then closed in a manner that was deemed to be in breach of regulations.

[Lola]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYUlAAOwg1w

Jenson Button & Karun Chandhok analyse Vettel-Hamilton 5 second penalty incident!

I agree with this 100%.

[Kempi]

I am geoblocked... what do they say?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Kempi

I am geoblocked... what do they say?

Button: He turns in, gets a snap of oversteer, does the correct thing, collects it up on the grass and then he's heading towards this kerb [the kerb he bumps over when rejoining the track].

Karun: If we watch at this point, this is the point he's made a mistake [going over the kerb]. Hasn't he? He's caught the oversteer.

Button: Yeah if you watch his hands before he hits the kerb, he's turning and he's going to end up in the middle of the circuit. But because he's hit the kerb, and it's bigger than he expected, because he's not been off there, he's got this snap on the kerb and that's sent the rear of the car out, and he's had to correct. It looks like he's steering to the right-hand side of the circuit, but he's not, he's just correcting oversteer. He's then collecting it back up.

Karun: He's putting a lot of lock on to tidy it back up. And I think at this point [stops video], it's the first point where he's in control.

Button: I agree

Karun: And what's his hand doing? It's straight. He has tried to give Lewis room.

Button: Yeah he has. He's not thinking of Lewis too much at this point because he's thinking that I have to get control of this car and get over the grass and not hit the wall. We've got to remember we're going through here at 100mph, it happens at a blink of an eye. And to be fair, he doesn't run it out to the wall.

--

I'll stop transcribing here because they move onto what Lewis sees, which obviously isn't part of the penalty.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by gert

And what if the picture would have been taken a lap earlier?
Would you still label that as "Vettel is forcing Hamilton off the track" or would you label it as "Hamilton seems to be going for a gap that is simply not there, or will not open up" ?

I don't think you can take a still shot and compare it with a different lap in this way. Vettel would have been going much quicker on the previous lap and by doing so, Hamilton would not have had to 'take evasive action'.

Originally Posted by Lola

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYUlAAOwg1w

Jenson Button & Karun Chandhok analyse Vettel-Hamilton 5 second penalty incident!

I agree with this 100%.

This is one of the many questions I have, regarding the reason he turned right. I respect Jenson and Karun's knowledge and experience, but wonder whether it was really just correcting the car or turning deliberately. So did the stewards or did they not analyse telemetry and were they able to deduce this?

What is the penalty for here? Rejoining the track 'in a unsafe manner', making Car 44 take 'evasive action to avoid a collision' or both? Furthermore, what constitutes rejoining the track in an unsafe manner? Just the moment when he entered the track or the whole process of rejoining right up to ending up on the racing line and making Hamilton take evasive action? It was normal for him to rejoin the track (as opposed to stopping on the grass or rejoining really, really slowly) and if it has been deduced that just rejoining while having the car out of control is the 'unsafe manner', then it does set a precedent (or perhaps follow a precedent we have seen before), that you are unfortunate if you happen to rejoin while out of control and someone else is there. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's unfortunate (although I can't help but feel this could lead to so many penalties).

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

If we're thinking of the same incident, I think you were excluded.

Right, so I should feel more aggrieved than Vettel. He got away with runner-up spot.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Lola

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYUlAAOwg1w

Jenson Button & Karun Chandhok analyse Vettel-Hamilton 5 second penalty incident!

I agree with this 100%.

Only problem is they miss one glaringly obvious point. Vettel DIDNT leave Hamilton racing room or a cars width, he forces Hamilton fully off the racing surface. The rules state that he must rejoin safely when is able to do so and doesn’t gain a lasting advantage.

Did Vettel rejoin safely? No. Hamilton was fast approaching and alongside at the point of re entry to the racing line.

Did he gain a lasting advantage? Yes. He forced Hamilton to slam on the brakes, not allowing Hamilton racing room.

The rest from them is utter waffle when looking at the rules.

Do I agree with the application of the rules and the way they are written? Not especially, I think they’re too black and white, the only problem is that they were brought in specifically because drivers complained about being run off the track. If you change the rules to allow grey areas such as motive or whether it was an intentional block then how do you prove it.