Crown

Board: Motor Sports Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Whoopsy:
    SciFrog:

    Vettel did not gain any position, H was too far behind to overtake him unless Vettel came to an almost complete stop. As long as Vettel did not close the door on purpose while regaining the track (he did not, he barley made with without hitting the wall), he should stay in front. Part of the race. Furthermore he could not see exactly where H was.

    See the first link from my post. It was explained there. Vettel made a second steering wheel move which we can't quite see on TV, and that was the move that the decision was made from. He also checked his mirrors so he would have seen where Hamilton is. While the 2nd steering wheel movement could have been for further saving the car from oversteering, the rules is quite black and white that way, when one rejoin the track surface, it has to be done in a safe manor and not directly onto the racing line, it does't matter if the car is still out of control or not. 

    As I have mentioned before, I had a similar incident at Spa last year when I when completely inside the curbs at Radillon. When I rejoin the surface I was still sliding a bit and onto the racing line. The same rule was explained to me by the race director and I got a warning despite my protest. Sascha Massen afterwards told me that was a dangerous move, he lost one of his driver at the same corner, his driver did what I did and got nailed by another car coming up the hill. The rule is there for safety reasons.

    Any other decision would not make sense if the car behind is slightly further. Where would you put the limit then? 1.5s? 2s? 3s? 5s? 10s? 30s? One lap? The steward decision was unwarranted.

    The standard rule penalty is clearly written at 5 seconds, it's not arbitrary.

    Hamilton all of a sudden was much closer to Vettel, why didn’t he pass him then?

     

    Hamilton would have made it passed Vettel had there isn't a wall but run offs there. 

    The question about the seconds is not about the amount of seconds for the penalty. It is about the amount of time the car behind the driver that goes off the grass is. If H was 4 seconds behind V, should V still get a penalty and/or let the guy behind pass at 1.5s? 2s? 5s? 30s?

    What you are saying is Vettel deliberately regained the track and blocked H? Well no one but the steward say that... They have access to more data? Then why don’t they release it? I wrote it above, if he deliberately closed the door then he should be penalized. So far we have not enough info to say he did.


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    He reentered the track in a dangerous manner forcing Hamilton to brake or else hit the wall, the fact whetter it was deliberate or not does not matter according to the rules, it is still a 5 second penalty according to the rules.

    Bottom line is Vettel cracked under pressure, and made a mistake which forced him to brake a rule, and he was penalized according to that rule.

    It is not like it matters anyway, it's not like it's a competition were different drivers compete for a chance to win the tithe, there is only one driver that has the chance to win it, the rest of the drivers are extras on a movie.
    --

    ⇒ Carlos - Porsche 991 Carrera GTS


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    I think Vettel should have given up the position on track as he gained an advantage by blocking or re-entering the way he did. If the wall hadn't been there he would have lost the position too. In doing so they could have fought it out on track and no such decision should have been made.


    --

    1969 Mercedes-Benz 300SEL 6.3  / 2008 Porsche 911 GT3 RS (sold) / 2011 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Performance / 2014 BMW-Alpina D3 biturbo Touring / 2018 Porsche 911 GT3 Clubsport


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    The rules have some play in it. There is no definition of re-entering dangerously for starters. If H is far back enough there is zero danger. You could easily argue this was not dangerous because H saw everything and had plenty of time to react to it. Again, the issue is how far back should H have been for it to be dangerous? To me, if H was not actively trying to overtake V, there should be no penalty.


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Data shoes that H had to break when V '' closed the door '' on him . That is enough info to say, that V ' s move did affect  H 


    --

     

     964 Carrera 4 --  997.2 C2S , -20mm -- 991.2 GT3 RS 

     


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    SciFrog:

    The rules have some play in it. There is no definition of re-entering dangerously for starters. If H is far back enough there is zero danger. You could easily argue this was not dangerous because H saw everything and had plenty of time to react to it. Again, the issue is how far back should H have been for it to be dangerous? To me, if H was not actively trying to overtake V, there should be no penalty.

    Did you actually see it? Smiley Vettel re-entered the track in a way that forced Hamilton to brake to avoid being sandwiched against the wall and give up taking the lead because he was blocked by Vettel coming back into the track blindly.


    --

    ⇒ Carlos - Porsche 991 Carrera GTS


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    “Affect” not address the “dangerous” part of it...

    From the video, it is clear that V did not deliberately closed the door. If anything, dangerous was H trying to squeeze in a space that did not exist.

    Vettel did not deliberately re-entered the track by making the choice of a safe re-entry vs a dangerous one. Plus V did not gain any advantage because he was always in front. Then the rule also says it is at the large discretion of the stewards. Bad decision they took, pure race incident.


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Porker:

    I think Vettel should have given up the position on track as he gained an advantage by blocking or re-entering the way he did. If the wall hadn't been there he would have lost the position too. In doing so they could have fought it out on track and no such decision should have been made.

    That would of been ideal, would of solved the problem without having to resort to the stewards and penalties to rectify the situation.


    --

    ⇒ Carlos - Porsche 991 Carrera GTS


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Vettel could have let H pass then retake 1st, or H could have tried to attack V immediately and overtake him since he was now right behind. They both choose standby while waiting to see how the stewards would rule vs taking matter in their own hands. At that game, H won.


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    You can't take shortcuts over grass either... even if you claim afterwards that you have only been a "passenger". You get penalized. 

    This ain't any different. 


    --

    2018 White 911 GT3


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    SciFrog:

    “Affect” not address the “dangerous” part of it...

    From the video, it is clear that V did not deliberately closed the door. If anything, dangerous was H trying to squeeze in a space that did not exist.

    Vettel did not deliberately re-entered the track by making the choice of a safe re-entry vs a dangerous one. Plus V did not gain any advantage because he was always in front. Then the rule also says it is at the large discretion of the stewards. Bad decision they took, pure race incident.

    Did you really make this statement Smiley we all know Vettel panics when he is under pressure and dies silly things when its obvious that he made a mistake. Vettel intentionally went for the racing line knowing that that is where Hamilton will target based on V's mistake ! No more gifted titles for V if you ask me. Did you listen to what Hamilton said after the race during the press conference ? seems Vettel is fed up with F1 and knows he can't win the title anymore...Hamilton told him to stay around Smiley


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    So where was the penalty when Hamilton did this to Ricciardo in Monaco (2016)? Two sets of rules? Hamilton goes completely off the track, re-enters dangerously in that he forces Ric to brake to avoid the wall, and maintains his advantage in doing so.

     


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    To me, thats a different situation.

    Ricciardo was behind LH, both struggling for traction while accelerating.

     


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Absolutely comparable situation but both cases no penalties deserved


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Topspeed:

    To me, thats a different situation.

    Ricciardo was behind LH, both struggling for traction while accelerating.

     

    Ric managed to stay on the track, and Hamilton left it. Ric then got cut off while attempting to overtake after Hamilton rejoined, so they seem pretty similar. The rule would be the same, but the application of it certainly seems different. Smiley


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Yup, these two situations look the same. All my previous arguments are valid in the case too, actually if anything there was more reason for a penalty in 2016 than this weekend because at least in 2016 the car behind was really close to the car in front. If there was no penalty there, there should be none now, that is VERY clear.


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    it is so easy to solve: put sand instead of grass....and there will no more be those stupid actions

     

     


    --

    993 c2


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    The racer in me says it's hard racing, I don't quite mind, but the reality is that Vettel could have taken himself AND Hamilton out of the race. They are not going fast enough to cause injuries but there had bee racers who died rejoining a circuit safely and hence why the rule is written that way. 

    But following the letters of the rules as it is written it is a penalty. Which is also what the stewards found and applied. The same rule I also violated and got a warning out of it. 

    Hamilton got that close to be a close call is simply because Vettel lost all the speed by going over grass, then had to regain control of the car. In ay other circuit where there is room, Hamilton would have gone by Vettel already, Vettel would have lost that place anyway with or without penalty. 

    In this circuit there is a wall there, and Hamilton had to brake hard to avoid contact as Vettel rejoined the track in a unsafe manor and nearly causing a collision and that's called dangerous. Penalty deserved. 

    We can argue all we want, but the rules were applied correctly, some might argue about the 2016 race, but that was 2 incidents ago, the last time someone did the same thing it was Max and he got a penalty, so the consistency is actually there now. 


    --

     

     


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Very well said  and explained kiss

    I think the above puts an end to the debate


    --

     

    "Porsche....and Nothing else matters"

     


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Well the key word is “intent”. Vettel did not do it with intent. The rule is not very clear if there needs to be intent to apply a penalty but it says the stewards have discretion, meaning it is not automatic and as such it is a very small step away from saying no penalty should be applied if it was unintentional...

    If the penalty was automatic, the rules would state so. As such, I do not agree the penalty should have been given. No intent.

    You can find a justification in the application of the rule, that doesn’t make it respect the spirit of the race and what the rules were designed to do, here to protect the drivers. Vettel had no choice how he rejoined the track, as such making a rule to apply a penalty for something it will not influence has no meaning.


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Whoopsy:

    We can argue all we want, but the rules were applied correctly, some might argue about the 2016 race, but that was 2 incidents ago, the last time someone did the same thing it was Max and he got a penalty, so the consistency is actually there now. 

    Not only that but this rule may have not been in place back in 2016, all we know is that it is a rule now and just last year was applied exactly like now with Max as you mentioned and Vettel knew it.


    --

    ⇒ Carlos - Porsche 991 Carrera GTS


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    SciFrog:

    Well the key word is “intent”. Vettel did not do it with intent. The rule is not very clear if there needs to be intent to apply a penalty but it says the stewards have discretion, meaning it is not automatic and as such it is a very small step away from saying no penalty should be applied if it was unintentional...

    If the penalty was automatic, the rules would state so. As such, I do not agree the penalty should have been given. No intent.

    You can find a justification in the application of the rule, that doesn’t make it respect the spirit of the race and what the rules were designed to do, here to protect the drivers. Vettel had no choice how he rejoined the track, as such making a rule to apply a penalty for something it will not influence has no meaning.

     

    This particular rule is there for safety reason. Argue all you want but you have no case. Zero.

    It has nothing to do with intent. Had Vettel intent to cut across to the racing line to block Hamilton, then he is in violation of the rule, he is intentionally not rejoining the circuit safely.

    Had he don't have intent but he was just a passenger for the ride, he is still liable for the penalty as as a race car driver he is suppose to have the car under control the whole time, and he is also not suppose to be on the grass in the first place.

    The out come is the same anyways, he lost control, he slide across and losing all the speed, he deserved to be passed. He didn't lose control, he block on purpose, he gets a penalty and lose the place. 

    There is no wiggle room. 


    --

     

     


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

     the moment telemetry shows that Hamilton had to break heavily in a place where you don't usually break (because of "unsafe" return on track)  it's game over - it's 5 sec.....end of story....

    Vettel gave it away by not letting him pass and then immediately use DRS advantage on the next couple of rounds as he clearly had the faster car at the end of the race. He also did not even tried to extend the 3.3 sec lead he had to 5.0 but rather decide to talk & complain on the radio multiple times.


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    I'm not sure he really tried to block Hamilton on purpose. He was clearly too pissed afterwards. However, I also believe that the penalty was justified, because he did a driver's error afterall and Hamilton deserved to get passed. I don't understand why he doesn't feel bad about his own mistake, thinking there shouldn't be any consequences.


    --

    2018 White 911 GT3


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    I think a lot of it probably has to do with the inconsistent application of penalties in F1 and the perceived lack of fairness due to that. Also, he’s been struggling this season so there’s an emotional component to it.


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    What is the purpose of the rule? To ensure that drivers regain the track safely after getting off. But that assumes the driver can actually act to regain the track safely. In the case where the driver just regains the track in the safest manner possible, as was the case here, there is no need for the rule to kick in and the penalty to be applied.

    Let’s put it another way, the rule exist to ensure a certain behavior will be chosen if a driver has the choice, and the rule lets the stewards impose a penalty at their discretion if the driver did not have the proper behavior. Here Vettel had the proper behavior re-entering the track, there is no reason to use the penalty part of the rule since he did not break the reason for the rule to exist.

    The portion of the rule that states the driver cannot gain an advantage does not apply here, Vettel was ahead and stayed ahead.

    The key words are intent but also discretion (for the stewards to apply the penalty or not).

    This was a very poor and unfortunate application and interpretation of the rule by the stewards, let alone the fact that they killed the spirit of the race. Viewership will get hurt.


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    You remind me on noone1 indecision

    1. He did NOT re-enter the track in a safe manner if he caused another driver to hit the brakes to avoid colliding with him or the wall. Fact.

    2. He gained an advantage by blocking Ham against the wall, if he would of not blocked Ham and forced him to brake, Ham would of overtaken Vettel because he had more speed going out of the corner since he was not coming off the grass like Vettel. Fact.

    3. Intent plays no part in the rule. He re-entered the track unsafely blocking another driver and gaining an advantage by that, he got the stipulated penalty in the rulebook. Period.


    --

    ⇒ Carlos - Porsche 991 Carrera GTS


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Gauss:

    I'm not sure he really tried to block Hamilton on purpose. He was clearly too pissed afterwards. However, I also believe that the penalty was justified, because he did a driver's error afterall and Hamilton deserved to get passed. I don't understand why he doesn't feel bad about his own mistake, thinking there shouldn't be any consequences.

    It is easier to deal with your shortcomings if you blame it on someone else, hence the self entitled 6yr old girl tantrum he threw in front of everyone afterwards, as this mistake was specially tough to accept because it was him breaking under pressure once again, something he has been called for many times before and does not want to admit.

    I'm not a fan of either driver but Ham owned Vet the past weekend inside and outside the track, and Ham's statements to the press after the race about him putting pressure on Vettel until he broke and that well rounded drivers don't do that while vettel threw his childish tantrum afterwards just made it more obvious.


    --

    ⇒ Carlos - Porsche 991 Carrera GTS


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    Carlos from Spain:

    You remind me on noone1 indecision

    1. He did NOT re-enter the track in a safe manner if he caused another driver to hit the brakes to avoid colliding with him or the wall. Fact.

    2. He gained an advantage by blocking Ham against the wall, if he would of not blocked Ham and forced him to brake, Ham would of overtaken Vettel because he had more speed going out of the corner since he was not coming off the grass like Vettel. Fact.

    3. Intent plays no part in the rule. He re-entered the track unsafely blocking another driver and gaining an advantage by that, he got the stipulated penalty in the rulebook. Period.

    Rules exist to stop people from doing some specific things, intent is always a part of a rule. Not only that but in this specific rule, a human had discretion over inflicting a penalty or not even if the facts line up. Your argument does not make sense.


    Re: 2019 Canadian F1 Grand Prix in Montreal

    SciFrog:
     

    Rules exist to stop people from doing some specific things, intent is always a part of a rule. Not only that but in this specific rule, a human had discretion over inflicting a penalty or not even if the facts line up. Your argument does not make sense.

     

    Exactly. This rule is there to provide safety. 

    Whether someone has control of the car or not when they re-enter the circuit plays no part in accessing a penalty. Saying I am just a passenger is to a valid excuse, the driver is suppose to have control of the car at all times. 

    As for your 'intent' point. Vettel is a top race car driver. He INTENTS to win a race. He INTENTS to stay in front of Hamilton till the end. When he went off track, he INTENTS on gaining control back and keep on racing and stay in front of Hamilton. 

    Now for the part of him cutting across the racing line and blocking Hamilton. If he had already gained control of the car back, the his INTENTION was to block out Hamilton to prevent him from passing as he knew he has lost his speed through the corner. With that conclusion, that Vettel is guilty of the rule by INTENTIONALLY re-joining the circuit unsafely.

    Now if he has't gained control back of the car and was still a passenger, then why would he be back on the gas already knowing he has less grip with grass on his tires? With him on the gas his car is still twitching, his INTENTION was to try try and gain back as much speed as possible to stay ahead of Hamilton, that INTENTION caused him to slide to the right even more, blocking Hamilton. In this scenario, Vettel is also guilty of violating the rule, he INTENTIONALLY re-join the circuit unsafely. He could have laid off the gas pedal and the car would have been back under his control, but at a slower speed and more left, leaving enough room on the right for Hamilton to go through. Had he done that, he would have been considered as re-joining the circuit safely, and no penalty will be assessed. 

    The stewards had looked at all the data and possible scenarios, none of which puts Vettel ahead of Hamilton. Hence, the penalty is just. Vettel was still ahead at that point, he could have focus on driving harder and negate the 5 second penalty, it's not like he was assessed a stop and go and killed his race.

     

     


    --

     

     


     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky The moment I've been waiting for... 8/11/21 2:00 PM
    throt
     
     
     
     
     
    476053 1287
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New Porsche 911 Turbo S (2020) 10/18/21 10:58 PM
    Leawood911
    174642 1150
    Porsche Sticky Welcome to Rennteam: Cars and Coffee... (photos) 10/14/21 6:25 PM
    bluelines
    68349 382
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part II) 10/20/21 2:36 PM
    Enmanuel
    61517 631
    Porsche Sticky ROAD TEST: New 992 Carrera 4S 3/3/21 10:57 PM
    Wonderbar
    47680 336
    Porsche Sticky Porsche Taycan Turbo S - Short Review 10/21/21 3:15 PM
    CGX car nut
    46739 432
    Porsche Sticky Porsche extends the Taycan model range (Taycan 2WD) 2/1/21 12:42 PM
    Leawood911
    12975 29
    Porsche Cayman GT4 10/5/21 7:04 PM
    Topspeed
    470521 3587
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 GT2 RS (2017) 9/28/21 3:25 AM
    WhoopsyM
    387504 3507
    McLaren McLaren on a winning streak 10/20/21 6:01 PM
    Topspeed
    383021 3919
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 991.2 GT3 RS (2018) 4/28/21 12:26 PM
    W8MM
    349260 3252
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 R (2016) 10/8/21 11:41 AM
    xpto
    318761 2647
    Porsche 992 GT3 10/21/21 1:02 PM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    270395 3050
    Porsche OFFICIAL: The new Porsche 992 – a design icon and high-tech sports car 9/29/21 1:59 AM
    watt
    252743 1587
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New Panamera (2016) 2/11/21 9:22 AM
    Itsme
    168567 1379
    Lambo Lamborghini Huracan and variants 4/9/21 4:32 PM
    Topspeed
    118952 1225
    Porsche Donor vehicle for Singer Vehicle Design 9/22/21 1:28 AM
    Leawood911
    103278 749
    Porsche Welcome to the new Taycan Forum! 10/9/21 1:11 PM
    CGX car nut
    94307 1231
    McLaren F1 7/10/21 7:43 AM
    BiTurbo
    82822 209
    Lambo Aventador and SV 8/27/21 2:33 PM
    Topspeed
    72621 698
    AMG AMG GT R 7/8/21 3:07 PM
    CGX car nut
    72466 824
    Porsche Nürburgring - Tesla vs. Taycan 11/23/20 6:10 PM
    Topspeed
    51410 596
    Others Tesla 2 the new thread 10/20/21 8:56 PM
    Leawood911
    49320 1204
    Others Bugatti Chiron 10/16/21 4:53 PM
    crayphile
    43092 486
    Ferrari Ferrari 812 Superfast 6/24/21 6:30 PM
    Porker
    40520 531
    Porsche Olive 991.2 GT3 Clubsport 1/1/21 7:58 PM
    throt
    39407 615
    BMW M BMW M2 Rumors 7/7/21 8:38 PM
    Jim_in_Iowa
    30774 394
    Ferrari 488 Replacement 4/17/21 8:28 PM
    Rossi
    27730 370
    Motor Sp. [2021] Formula 1 10/21/21 12:13 PM
    Leawood911
    26698 755
    Lambo Urus (SUV) 7/21/21 6:22 PM
    Topspeed
    26475 592
    261 items found, displaying 1 to 30.