2021 São Paulo Grand Prix - Interlagos, Nov 12-14

[dans79]

Are there any fans who have access to Max's onboard?

FIA is still downloading with MSDOS PC and 56k modem connection, it will be a while when the footage arrives probably end of season or next year.

more like 14.4k!

[Phil]

What a legendary GP that was and extraordinary drive from Lewis.

I'll admit, I didn't think there was a chance he could realistically fight for the win from the setbacks and the position he started in, but I was wrong. Very strong drive from Max too one has to say. A few points from my point of view:

- QF disqualification was the right call. Technical infringements are what they are. There's enough precedent for that. I can understand the point, that it was probably down to minor fault when building the parts together that led to the smallest of margins being missed, but if no damage can be proven during the QF event, then it was out of spec and the disqualification a logical result.

- Max's defence was very clearly over the limit and I'm baffled that there was no formal investigation. Lewis was ahead into the corner and on the line with the most traction (hence later braking point than Max to make the corner), yet the latter just decided to keep is car there and 'dive bomb' both cars beyond the track with no effort at all to even corner or make the apex. I can understand to a point that there is a general interest of not interfering with the championship, but not at least investigating such maneuvers sends the wrong message.

Having said that, given Lewis still found a way past, it made the victory all the more enjoyable and I respect Max for being the fierce competitor that he is. Looking forward, I still somehow think that RedBull and Max have this year in the bag. While the Mercedes might have some small advantage with the engine, I just think that as a team, RB and especially Max has been operating on the highest level this year and they've won way more races, even the ones that they shouldn't have. I also think Bottas will not be strong enough where he needs to be, that would see him take any meaningful points away from Verstappen.

We will see.

[Marty_Y]

He was able to easily follow through the twisty bits, for an easy overtake with DRS on the straight.

The "easy" overtake was set up half a lap before (at least) and required getting close enough to Max half a lap before so that in to T1 it made him go defensive. That put Max slightly off line through T2 and T3 allowing Lewis to take the faster entry through T1 and thus get a better run through T2-T3.

It was proper race craft, not a simple DRS pass like is do often the case.

Exactly that, he learned from his previous attempt, set Max up perfectly and then executed in a way that didn't allow Max to respond. It was great race craft from a great racer imo.

[Sieper]

He was able to easily follow through the twisty bits, for an easy overtake with DRS on the straight.

The "easy" overtake was set up half a lap before (at least) and required getting close enough to Max half a lap before so that in to T1 it made him go defensive. That put Max slightly off line through T2 and T3 allowing Lewis to take the faster entry through T1 and thus get a better run through T2-T3.

It was proper race craft, not a simple DRS pass like is do often the case.

Exactly that, he learned from his previous attempt, set Max up perfectly and then executed in a way that didn't allow Max to respond. It was great race craft from a great racer imo.

Ofcourse. In Cota I was sure it was going to happen, but never a chance really occurred, so here It was again super tense as Lewis did not even have a meaningfull tire advantage in that last stint (about equally old, one or two laps difference only) but at the moment Verstappen started to slide (I said that to my friends also, he is starting to slide now) Lewis pounced straight away. To be honoust, Max did also already say on the radio that his tires weren’t going to last. But immediately when the issues got urgent Lewis spotted it and attacked decisively. That is how it is done by the best. Don’t wait, when the chance is there, take it, otherwise your own tires might also drop off.

[Big Tea]

What a legendary GP that was and extraordinary drive from Lewis.

- QF disqualification was the right call. Technical infringements are what they are. There's enough precedent for that. I can understand the point, that it was probably down to minor fault when building the parts together that led to the smallest of margins being missed, but if no damage can be proven during the QF event, then it was out of spec and the disqualification a logical result.

Yeh. That type of test is called go/no go. There is no interpretation in it is pass or fail. there is no 'allowance' in that any deviation would have to be on the 'no-go' side to allow for mistakes like setting up.

This was not FIA being petty it just is or is not. It is not as if he was dsq'd from any race at all, just what results there were when the test failed.

Had it been in industry the produce from the time the last test passed would be put one side for individual checking, but as the car was moving at the time that is not possible of course, so it all has to be suspect and rejected

[AeroDynamic]

What a legendary GP that was and extraordinary drive from Lewis.

- QF disqualification was the right call. Technical infringements are what they are. There's enough precedent for that. I can understand the point, that it was probably down to minor fault when building the parts together that led to the smallest of margins being missed, but if no damage can be proven during the QF event, then it was out of spec and the disqualification a logical result.

Yeh. That type of test is called go/no go. There is no interpretation in it is pass or fail. there is no 'allowance' in that any deviation would have to be on the 'no-go' side to allow for mistakes like setting up.

This was not FIA being petty it just is or is not. It is not as if he was dsq'd from any race at all, just what results there were when the test failed.

Had it been in industry the produce from the time the last test passed would be put one side for individual checking, but as the car was moving at the time that is not possible of course, so it all has to be suspect and rejected

Agree. I do think there should be a small room of allowance here though; if the team can prove the wing was broken, as it was so obvious in this case (0.2mm.. and most of the wing conformed to the limit of 85mm) then they should just allow them to repair it and do a 10 place grid penalty. But straight to the back for something that innocent, needs looking at.

The championship was over on Saturday morning. Fans of formula 1 should thank Mercedes and Hamilton for bouncing back against all odds and carrying the championship fight on to the next rounds and continuing to make this a classic season and not a spoiled one by something so pedantic and clearly unreasonable to punish a team/driver so harshly for.

I think the FIA have been too kind allowing red bull to keep repairing wings inside parc ferme more than once. There has to be a point where they use a different wing and finish the event with it and take responsibility for their design. FIA have been holding certain peoples hands a lot. It’s got to the point where for the sake of the show, they have compromised real racing so they don’t ruin the show, because their lead act has a problem with racing like a decent racer. Instead of getting him into the fold, they bend the rules to accommodate. Would’ve never happened under Charlie Whiting.

Massi has no spine whatsoever. Still laughing listening too Jonathan Wheatley using his hocus pocus at every opportunity on him. I gotta respect Wheatley’s game though, he’s a real asset. Even if it’s revolting to listen to him work, it was like witnessing Jedi mind tricks.

[mstar]

Bottas tested his engines and maps before to give Mercedes information about how hard can they push. Were there anomalies between him and another cars?

I believe this was the case with william drivers. They was given new PUs unexpectedly and no official reason other than "reliability concerns" and then Bottas afterwards. I think they been secretly testing the "fixes" to solve as much as they can the degradation/reliability issue. So they ran their engines hard as they can to see if the fixes worked to minimise the issues. Once they was happy they quickly gave it to Lewis in turkey. It must be noted RBR and HONDA already know this they have their own tools and they know Merc engines degrade faster than any other engine on the grid.

I didn't follow the Williams too much Was their good form in several grand prix After engine change or Before? For example, in Spa, although there Russell had settings for rain, but still. In Brazil Williams was way worse.. Engine down already?

Yes it was noted by RBR, that when the williams drivers last had their new engines they shot up in the speed track figures. So RBR and HONDA have known for a long time the degrading factor in Merc PU's.

[f1jcw]

Just checking if FIA released the video, friendly advice, don't put "Max Video" into twitter.....

[Big Tea]

What a legendary GP that was and extraordinary drive from Lewis.

- QF disqualification was the right call. Technical infringements are what they are. There's enough precedent for that. I can understand the point, that it was probably down to minor fault when building the parts together that led to the smallest of margins being missed, but if no damage can be proven during the QF event, then it was out of spec and the disqualification a logical result.

Yeh. That type of test is called go/no go. There is no interpretation in it is pass or fail. there is no 'allowance' in that any deviation would have to be on the 'no-go' side to allow for mistakes like setting up.

This was not FIA being petty it just is or is not. It is not as if he was dsq'd from any race at all, just what results there were when the test failed.

Had it been in industry the produce from the time the last test passed would be put one side for individual checking, but as the car was moving at the time that is not possible of course, so it all has to be suspect and rejected

Agree. I do think there should be a small room of allowance here though; if the team can prove the wing was broken, as it was so obvious in this case (0.2mm.. and most of the wing conformed to the limit of 85mm) then they should just allow them to repair it and do a 10 place grid penalty. But straight to the back for something that innocent, needs looking at.

The championship was over on Saturday morning. Fans of formula 1 should thank Mercedes and Hamilton for bouncing back against all odds and carrying the championship fight on to the next rounds and continuing to make this a classic season and not a spoiled one by something so pedantic and clearly unreasonable to punish a team/driver so harshly for.

I think the FIA have been too kind allowing red bull to keep repairing wings inside parc ferme more than once. There has to be a point where they use a different wing and finish the event with it and take responsibility for their design. FIA have been holding certain peoples hands a lot. It’s got to the point where for the sake of the show, they have compromised real racing so they don’t ruin the show, because their lead act has a problem with racing like a decent racer. Instead of getting him into the fold, they bend the rules to accommodate. Would’ve never happened under Charlie Whiting.

Massi has no spine whatsoever. Still laughing listening too Jonathan Wheatley using his hocus pocus at every opportunity on him. I gotta respect Wheatley’s game though, he’s a real asset. Even if it’s revolting to listen to him work, it was like witnessing Jedi mind tricks.

There is as much 'room of allowance ' on it as the team wish to put. They can limit the slot to 12mm if they want (obviously they don't, and the limit is 10mm I think). That's what the type of test is called go/nogo. it can 'nogo' by as big a margin as the team wants, but it has to be on the 'small' side. It seems draconian to fail it with so small a measurement, but that is the test.

Toto was so wound up because they were not allowed to fix the problem, but fixing the problem then would not mean it was not 'wrong' when timed previously, so as much as I dislike it I have to say I think FIA are right about it.

No not sure if it is right or wrong, but it is in black and white in the rules. There is no interpretation involved (o neither side) TBH, I think more FIA tests should be this type and the 'result' is hard and fast with no wriggle room, but in so many cases it is just not practical.

[DChemTech]

What a legendary GP that was and extraordinary drive from Lewis.

- QF disqualification was the right call. Technical infringements are what they are. There's enough precedent for that. I can understand the point, that it was probably down to minor fault when building the parts together that led to the smallest of margins being missed, but if no damage can be proven during the QF event, then it was out of spec and the disqualification a logical result.

Yeh. That type of test is called go/no go. There is no interpretation in it is pass or fail. there is no 'allowance' in that any deviation would have to be on the 'no-go' side to allow for mistakes like setting up.

This was not FIA being petty it just is or is not. It is not as if he was dsq'd from any race at all, just what results there were when the test failed.

Had it been in industry the produce from the time the last test passed would be put one side for individual checking, but as the car was moving at the time that is not possible of course, so it all has to be suspect and rejected

Agree. I do think there should be a small room of allowance here though; if the team can prove the wing was broken, as it was so obvious in this case (0.2mm.. and most of the wing conformed to the limit of 85mm) then they should just allow them to repair it and do a 10 place grid penalty. But straight to the back for something that innocent, needs looking at.

The championship was over on Saturday morning. Fans of formula 1 should thank Mercedes and Hamilton for bouncing back against all odds and carrying the championship fight on to the next rounds and continuing to make this a classic season and not a spoiled one by something so pedantic and clearly unreasonable to punish a team/driver so harshly for.

I think the FIA have been too kind allowing red bull to keep repairing wings inside parc ferme more than once. There has to be a point where they use a different wing and finish the event with it and take responsibility for their design. FIA have been holding certain peoples hands a lot. It’s got to the point where for the sake of the show, they have compromised real racing so they don’t ruin the show, because their lead act has a problem with racing like a decent racer. Instead of getting him into the fold, they bend the rules to accommodate. Would’ve never happened under Charlie Whiting.

Massi has no spine whatsoever. Still laughing listening too Jonathan Wheatley using his hocus pocus at every opportunity on him. I gotta respect Wheatley’s game though, he’s a real asset. Even if it’s revolting to listen to him work, it was like witnessing Jedi mind tricks.

And Jonathan Wheatley is worse than "Michael this is Toto, I just sent you an email" how?
Both team use such tactics. I find it equally revolting to listen to Toto's continuous drivel about how Mercedes is the underdog every weekend, especially since the more he's crying wolff about being the underdog, the more dominant they seem to be on track that weekend. Both teams play such games, all part of the show. And please keep in mind that forum members on 'both teams' equally show bias. Some of the people that were furious about Max's irresponsible action today were defending Lewis's irresponsible action at Silverstone - or worse, trying to shift the blame on Max. We now see comments on how there should be some lenience in technical regulation decisions now that they affect Mercedes, from people that would most likely say (or have said in the past) "rules are rules" when it comes to another team. Some reflection may be in order.

[AeroDynamic]

Yeh. That type of test is called go/no go. There is no interpretation in it is pass or fail. there is no 'allowance' in that any deviation would have to be on the 'no-go' side to allow for mistakes like setting up.

This was not FIA being petty it just is or is not. It is not as if he was dsq'd from any race at all, just what results there were when the test failed.

Had it been in industry the produce from the time the last test passed would be put one side for individual checking, but as the car was moving at the time that is not possible of course, so it all has to be suspect and rejected

Agree. I do think there should be a small room of allowance here though; if the team can prove the wing was broken, as it was so obvious in this case (0.2mm.. and most of the wing conformed to the limit of 85mm) then they should just allow them to repair it and do a 10 place grid penalty. But straight to the back for something that innocent, needs looking at.

The championship was over on Saturday morning. Fans of formula 1 should thank Mercedes and Hamilton for bouncing back against all odds and carrying the championship fight on to the next rounds and continuing to make this a classic season and not a spoiled one by something so pedantic and clearly unreasonable to punish a team/driver so harshly for.

I think the FIA have been too kind allowing red bull to keep repairing wings inside parc ferme more than once. There has to be a point where they use a different wing and finish the event with it and take responsibility for their design. FIA have been holding certain peoples hands a lot. It’s got to the point where for the sake of the show, they have compromised real racing so they don’t ruin the show, because their lead act has a problem with racing like a decent racer. Instead of getting him into the fold, they bend the rules to accommodate. Would’ve never happened under Charlie Whiting.

Massi has no spine whatsoever. Still laughing listening too Jonathan Wheatley using his hocus pocus at every opportunity on him. I gotta respect Wheatley’s game though, he’s a real asset. Even if it’s revolting to listen to him work, it was like witnessing Jedi mind tricks.

And Jonathan Wheatley is worse than "Michael this is Toto, I just sent you an email" how?
Both team use such tactics. I find it equally revolting to listen to Toto's continuous drivel about how Mercedes is the underdog every weekend, especially since the more he's crying wolff about being the underdog, the more dominant they seem to be on track that weekend. Both teams play such games, all part of the show. And please keep in mind that forum members on 'both teams' equally show bias. Some of the people that were furious about Max's irresponsible action today were defending Lewis's irresponsible action at Silverstone - or worse, trying to shift the blame on Max. We now see comments on how there should be some lenience in technical regulation decisions now that they affect Mercedes, from people that would most likely say (or have said in the past) "rules are rules" when it comes to another team. Some reflection may be in order.

I’m not sure why you need to tell me this, if it makes you feel better I guess? But it does seem petty to direct this at me because I guess you feel some way about my post. I kinda like Toto, but I don’t care about him, I got no reason to care if others think less of him. F1 is not a personality contest, I’m here to rate drives. Not personalities. If it affects how the sport plays out like it does on the radio to the FIA then I have reason to concern myself with who these people are rather than what they do on track. And I’m not knocking Wheatley, I complimented him; he’s got mad game, way more than Ron has for Mercedes. it’s just revolting to watch. But since you bring up the email thing I feel it’s appropriate to remind you, that was in response to lobbying from another team who didn’t want to allow the stewards to form their own opinion.

I think the right thing to do is let the stewards form an opinion, as it is their boundary and that should be respected, and then react to it after or appeal it if a team feel it should.

I will criticise RB because they have not respected this boundary this season and have in fact been lobbying and gaming the FIA over radio to influence how they should look at the incident or feel about it without affording them their own time and view. They shouldn’t be telling them anything while they’re reviewing technical evidence and video evidence, and going over the rules. Bias opinions from teams abuse the fidelity of the stewards work.

Max and Silverstone is old. Everyone has their own opinion, bringing it up again is a waste of time. I will say that in my view, Lewis would’ve kept his car on the road in Silverstone, and was actually along side almost fully before breaking. I approve of that. I don’t approve of being almost a car length behind before breaking, and out breaking yourself so much that you leave the circuit by more than 4 car widths

[MV8]

What do you think of this, could be possible?

https://www.racefans.net/2021/11/15/cou ... ton-clash/

[DChemTech]

I’m not sure why you need to tell me this, if it makes you feel better I guess? But it does seem petty to direct this at me because I guess you feel some way about my post. I kinda like Toto, but I don’t care about him, I got no reason to care if others think less of him. F1 is not a personality contest, I’m here to rate drives. Not personalities. If it affects how the sport plays out like it does on the radio to the FIA then I have reason to concern myself with who these people are rather than what they do on track. And I’m not knocking Wheatley, I complimented him; he’s got mad game, way more than Ron has for Mercedes. it’s just revolting to watch. But since you bring up the email thing I feel it’s appropriate to remind you, that was in response to lobbying from another team who didn’t want to allow the stewards to form their own opinion.

I think the right thing to do is let the stewards form an opinion, as it is their boundary and that should be respected, and then react to it after or appeal it if a team feel it should.

I will criticise RB because they have not respected this boundary this season and have in fact been lobbying and gaming the FIA over radio to influence how they should look at the incident or feel about it without affording them their own time and view. They shouldn’t be telling them anything while they’re reviewing technical evidence and video evidence, and going over the rules. Bias opinions from teams abuse the fidelity of the stewards work.

Max and Silverstone is old. Everyone has their own opinion, bringing it up again is a waste of time. I will say that in my view, Lewis would’ve kept his car on the road in Silverstone, and was actually along side almost fully before breaking. I approve of that. I don’t approve of being almost a car length behind before breaking, and out breaking yourself so much that you leave the circuit by more than 4 car widths

I directed it at you because you made the comment. If it were someone else making the comment, I'd be directing it at them. But yes, for someone not claiming to rate personalities, you seem to have quite strong judgements on personalities. But there are other users that made similar, or worse, comments to drivers, stewards, and whatnot - so it's definitely not just (or even predominantly) directed at you personally. It just generally keeps amazing me that there's a sizable group that call out every slight bit of bias in favor of Max, and present themselves as unbiased voices of reason, while they themselves show similar bias in favor of Lewis.

Mercedes is not free of such lobbying. They lobbied regarding wings, they called suspicion on the RB engine when RB was performing well, there are allegations of Mercedes having been a significant factor in pushing for the new pit stop rules, and I do not think the lobbying towards the Steward at Silverstone was 'in response' - they would gave done it regardless.

And yes, Silverstone -the incident, title deciding as it may be- is in the past. That won't change. But I am not bringing up the incident - I am bringing up the response. What I'm saying is that, there are users here that 'assault' Lewis when Lewis's made a mistake, and defend Max when Max's made a mistake. There are equally users that 'assault' Max when Max's made a mistake, and defend Lewis when Lewis's made a mistake - and immediately go into the defense every time Silverstone is named, even when it was not at all about the incident itself...

[NathanOlder]

If Max drove in Silverstone like Lewis did yesterday, he would have finished 2nd at worst in Silverstone.

if Lewis drove in Sao Paulo like Max dis in Silverstone, he probably would have DNF'd and Max won the race.

[DChemTech]

Thanks for supporting the point