[Official] Austrian Grand Prix 2020: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 1 of who knows how many

[GregUK]

Culpability is when one party to an incident is deemed by the Stewards to be 'wholly or predominantly responsible'.

For this incident, the Stewards decided: "The Stewards reviewed video evidence showing that cars 23 and 44 were side by side approaching the apex of turn 4. They negotiated the turn side by side, but car 23 had a better exit and was in the process of passing car 44. Car 44 was drafting to the outside at the exit of turn 4 and consequently making contact with the rear right wheel of car 23, causing car 23 to spin. The Stewards determined that the driver of car 44 is predominantly to blame for the collision."

We can all have a different view about the incident and/or the penalty, but the Stewards' view trumps all others (save for appeals). That's the way motorsport works.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by GregUK

We can all have a different view about the incident and/or the penalty, but the Stewards' view trumps all others (save for appeals). That's the way motorsport works.

I suppose a question is could Hamilton have steered on a tighter line to avoid it or was he at the steering's limit? I'm assuming he could have. Therefore, from that point of view, we can see why the penalty was awarded.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Interesting perspective and this is a change we are seeing in motorsport it seems. There is more culpability apportioned in many incidents and an attempt to seek to define what is clearly acceptable and worthy of a penalty (and there are more penalties). There is a shift to punishing misdemeanours and seeing the punishments not as a form of rebuke of the drivers, but as an integral part of race management. For what it's worth, I'm not sure where I stand. The goal posts are shifting and I'm observing it with interest. However, I do think Hamilton wasn't trying to crowd out Albon and looked to be holding a tighter line. He's inevitably going to get on the throttle at some point, though. The problem with such policing in motorsport is also because decisions happen so quickly. All in all, and based on precedent, I would call it a super racing incident.

You could also argue that if both drivers have similar levels of blame, you could punish them both. We don't seem to see that. We see the 'wronged' driver not being punished, but if both have some fault, you could make a case for saying you penalise them both. I'm not expecting it, though (nor desiring it).

In my view if there is equal blame, but both drivers behaved very dangerously, penalties can still be given.


I think the main problem with the "leave a car width on track" rule and it's policing is that there is a sliding slope element to it. In this case Albon's wheel was in front so it's pretty clear cut, but in many offences of this rule that isn't the case.

It makes quite a difference if at the moment of impact both cars are completely alongside each other, or the one being squeezed is half a car length behind or perhaps his front wheel is barely alongside the other's back wheel. When do you call it being left insufficient room and when does it become, "well you just lost the corner."

I think this slide slope element makes it hard to police this rule and therefore it is applied with restraint and therefore drivers have been taking liberties with this rule.

Probably a hard one to solve.

[GregUK]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I suppose a question is, could Hamilton have steered on a tighter line to avoid it or was he at the steering's limit? I'm assuming he could have. Therefore, from that point of view, we can see why the penalty was awarded.

The picture I posted was as close to the moment of impact as I could manage. Hamilton does not appear to be turning very much at all.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by GregUK

The picture I posted was as close to the moment of impact as I could manage. Hamilton does not appear to be turning very much at all.

You can’t see whether Lewis is scratching his balls or not in that photo. The onboard is a far better shot and shows Lewis is pretty much on full lock, doesn’t open up the steering etc.

I tend to take the view of the experts....every ex driver I saw yesterday said it was one of those things. Hamilton did nothing wrong, neither did Albon, it was just one of those things. The penalty was harsh but so was the result for Albon so was probably justified.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by GregUK

The picture I posted was as close to the moment of impact as I could manage. Hamilton does not appear to be turning very much at all.

He seemed to be depending on Albon taking an even wider line. He was trying to force him to take one. That's the risk he took, because Albon didn't and almost timed it to perfection by getting good grip off the corner and getting by anyway.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

You can’t see whether Lewis is scratching his balls or not in that photo. The onboard is a far better shot and shows Lewis is pretty much on full lock, doesn’t open up the steering etc.

I tend to take the view of the experts....every ex driver I saw yesterday said it was one of those things. Hamilton did nothing wrong, neither did Albon, it was just one of those things. The penalty was harsh but so was the result for Albon so was probably justified.

Every ex driver will say that because it is a very likely thing to do as a driver (especially a top competitor like Lewis) and they all have offended against the rule (and often gotten away with it). You just don't want to give up your position and restrain the throttle in order for the car to maintain a tighter trajectory to leave the other guy room, you want to apply as much throttle as you can to stay ahead. Yet, that is exactly what was required to stay within the rules.

Again, if he is steering towards Albon or the other way is not critical. The minimal tightness of the trajectory of the car is mainly limited by the amount of throttle applied from the apex onwards.

[Born Racer]

Good point re: the throttle. It wasn't a close enough thing to call with regards to steering angle. Drivers are dependent on others being very compliant with throttle application. As a racing driver in the heat of battle, one of the last things you want to do is not hit the throttle thinking you need to leave space and find you could have got away with it and held your position.

We will see racing collisions forever.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

He seemed to be depending on Albon taking an even wider line. He was trying to force him to take one. That's the risk he took, because Albon didn't and almost timed it to perfection by getting good grip off the corner and getting by anyway.

Was he actually trying to 'force' him to take a wider line? I didn't see that personally. It was pretty obvious he wasn't going to lift off. Albon had his nose in front for sure, but he should have known that Hamilton wasn't going to just lift off and gift him the place, it's supposed to be racing, after all. I saw it as a racing incident at the time and still do now, personally. It was very unfortunate for Albon, but you could see it coming a mile off....

[S griffin]

I felt Norris took more of a risk in his move with Perez. Seemed to come from quite a way back and was a bit late too. If you keep doing moves like that you will get unstuck eventually. He’ll learn with experience

[Born Racer]

Well, not so much force him, but not actively avoid it. But as you say it's racing, and I'm old school.

I'm just trying to debate this from the new-fangled perspective.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by GregUK

Culpability is when one party to an incident is deemed by the Stewards to be 'wholly or predominantly responsible'.

For this incident, the Stewards decided: "The Stewards reviewed video evidence showing that cars 23 and 44 were side by side approaching the apex of turn 4. They negotiated the turn side by side, but car 23 had a better exit and was in the process of passing car 44. Car 44 was drafting to the outside at the exit of turn 4 and consequently making contact with the rear right wheel of car 23, causing car 23 to spin. The Stewards determined that the driver of car 44 is predominantly to blame for the collision."

We can all have a different view about the incident and/or the penalty, but the Stewards' view trumps all others (save for appeals). That's the way motorsport works.

The Steward's view does trump all others but a fair bit criticism has been leveled at the Stewards for inconsistency.

[Born Racer]

There was certainly a loosening-up of the strict penalties we had seen for driving conduct last year. I still think that the inconsistency is down to a lack of consensus on what is really expected from wheel-to-wheel stuff. It's not like inconsistencies in football. From what I can see from refereering, it has got tighter there over the years (someone with knowledge of football, feel free to correct me), but there are clear views on what is acceptable/ punishable or not. It's as though F1 stewarding can't make up its mind if it needs to penalise as much stuff or just let it slide, hence the inconsistencies.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Well, not so much force him, but not actively avoid it. But as you say it's racing, and I'm old school.

I'm just trying to debate this from the new-fangled perspective.

I'm old school too, which is why I saw it as a racing incident.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The minimal tightness of the trajectory of the car is mainly limited by the amount of throttle applied from the apex onwards.

and how much throttle did hamilton have on? certainly didnt seem on the power from the onboards.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Well, not so much force him, but not actively avoid it. But as you say it's racing, and I'm old school.

I'm just trying to debate this from the new-fangled perspective.

Being very much old school my self, having retired from racing 50 years ago, this is not new fangled at all.

I can still vividly recall the old CoCs giving their driver briefings at every race meeting emphasising that every driver should be totally aware of what was going on around them at all times, and that they should always give racing room to another competitor that was attempting to make a pass.

The golden rule back then was that if a driver attempting to overtake/pass had his/her front wheels in front of your rear wheels, then it was your obligation to ensure that there was no coming together.

But then, of course, we didn't have concrete curbs and wide run off areas to take advantage of; we had to keep between the painted white lines, and there was certainly no time or speed to be gained if you exceeded those lines. In fact you would be more likely to damage the car by so doing.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The golden rule back then was that if a driver attempting to overtake/pass had his/her front wheels in front of your rear wheels, then it was your obligation to ensure that there was no coming together.

This was always an unwritten rule, right? A gentlemen's agreement if you like. And I can well imagine that it helps to have gentlemen's agreements when racing is more dangerous, as it was then.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

This was always an unwritten rule, right? A gentlemen's agreement if you like. And I can well imagine that it helps to have gentlemen's agreements when racing is more dangerous, as it was then.

To be quite honest, BR, I don't actually know. I have to admit that I never read whatever they called the Blue Book back then, and more than likely, I wouldn't have had time or the inclination to read any written instructions from the race organisers.

Apart from anything else, it was self preservation. We didn't have hundreds of mechanics/engineers at our beck and call to put right the damage caused by our indiscretions; we had to do it ourselves, and personally pay for it.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

and how much throttle did hamilton have on? certainly didnt seem on the power from the onboards.

I have revisited the video I posted earlier. From 0:25 (onboard) you can hear that Hamilton's application of the throttle is very limited. So possibly from the moment he realized Albon was going to pass him there was not much he could've done. That said, each driver is still responsible for the position and trajectory of his car.


He probably wanted to brake as late as possible to stay ahead (Albon with his new tires could brake even later) and by braking so late his speed determined a trajectory that did not leave Albon enough room.



So I think it was certainly not intentional by Lewis, but as said you're still responsible for leaving room and there for position and trajectory of your car.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I felt Norris took more of a risk in his move with Perez. Seemed to come from quite a way back and was a bit late too. If you keep doing moves like that you will get unstuck eventually. He’ll learn with experience

Interesting - I saw that more as Perez was just caught napping by Norris and turned in on him (probably checked the mirrors, thought he was too far back and didn't check again before turning in). No intent in it but just a bit clumsy (maybe a bit race rusty?).

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

So I think it was certainly not intentional by Lewis, but as said you're still responsible for leaving room and there for position and trajectory of your car.

That goes for both drivers tbf.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Interesting - I saw that more as Perez was just caught napping by Norris and turned in on him (probably checked the mirrors, thought he was too far back and didn't check again before turning in). No intent in it but just a bit clumsy (maybe a bit race rusty?).

From what I saw Perez was just about to turn in when Norris started coming down the inside

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

That goes for both drivers tbf.

The difference being Lewis ended up breaking the rules.

[Greem]

Given all the talk of kerb usage over the weekend, I do find it very interesting that Albon didn't try to use the kerb (and the concrete behind it) in avoidance. Sure, that would have affected his acceleration, but there wouldn't have been a collision.

Wearing my observer's hat, at the time I thought it was completely 50/50 and therefore a 'racing incident' with no fault to be levelled at either driver - or fault with both, if you like it that way.

You win some, you lose some. Maybe Alex will have second thoughts before trying to monster a 6-time champion round the outside of a sketchy corner in future, which means his racecraft will have improved.

Vettel, though... feels like his racecraft is in a suitcase somewhere in Heathrow T5 baggage system.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

But then, of course, we didn't have concrete curbs and wide run off areas to take advantage of; we had to keep between the painted white lines, and there was certainly no time or speed to be gained if you exceeded those lines. In fact you would be more likely to damage the car by so doing.

Mike, I can imagine those tracks limits being defined by the circuit edge and the danger of surpassing it also contributed towards a certain racing style that has somehow receded. Because the drivers of today know they can try the kerbs and run-offs, both overtaker and overtakee adapt their driving accordingly, but sometimes one of the two is not planning to go beyond the circuit edge.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

We didn't have hundreds of mechanics/engineers at our beck and call to put right the damage caused by our indiscretions; we had to do it ourselves, and personally pay for it.

The best motivator to look after the car!