2023 Singapore Grand Prix - Marina Bay, Sep 15 -17

[Astro85]

That is inaccurate. Gap increased to 2s after HAM passed LEC and HAM was 1.3s faster over the next 3 laps after which they remained in the DRS train until the end.

It was also quite visible to see on track. Russell had traction issues with the rears likely overheating while Hamilton was able to take tighter lines into corners.

I have just watched those moments now, after Hamilton passed Leclerc he was around 1.3 secs behind Russell, it then went up to around 1.8 secs and stabilized, Hamilton then started reeling him in and was around 1.1-1.3 secs behind by the time Russell had caught up to Norris. As I said, his blistering pace relative to Russell had disappeared by the time he passed Leclerc.

The pace did not dissapear. You cannot look at lap times in isolation. There is a slower moving object in front of any car, it will have to do slower than it is capable of. Hamilton ran into russel and literally held back and waited. He had more pace in hand. It was obvious.

Russell had more pace in hand but came up to the Sainz train, you can't have it both ways.

[mwillems]

@mwillems - I don't expect to change your mind as you are pretty invested into particularly, the Norris part of the overtake. tbh I'm in two minds about the second part but first want to give my perspective on Lewis's placement and speed at the point George is turning right towards the second apex. George has every right to take the inside of the second apex to the right, Lewis well before this point had zero right to this line and knew it. So he was on a line he would be obligated to drop speed and pull in behind George, albeit on a far more left pointing trajectory. This line would have meant a very compromised exit speed by Lewis and probably even meant Lando would have blown past him on the straight if he genuinely tried to navigate the whole corner bailing from George's rear. His alternate action was what we saw.

So my dilemma on the Lando pass is does Lewis so compromise the RH part of the esses by a very speculative lunge that Lando would have on the optimum line blown past on the exit. It's very open to debate but we've seen all manner of rule interpretations to make this one seem not too out of the ordinary. I do disagree firmly with the notion that he didn't need to give back the place to George - slam dunk!

I'm invested in an open discussion around the rules and what makes it right or wrong, not the outcome. The frustration is that in the Mclaren Forum that is often not easy due to fans having a predetermined idea of what's right and not discussing what makes it right or wrong. Instead it's a case of expressing frustration that it is obvious to them and why are we discussing it when it clearly isn't, or simply having the belief you can read Hamiltons mind or intentions is enough, or saying he is going too fast, which is not a breach of any rules and not any kind of answer, it's the point of the sport.

Let's put it this way, if Lando had been made to give the place back this will be a long discussion and an individual would be saying how unfair it was for decades and linking it to the $100m fine. So I think how clear cut this is is more of a convenience than a truth.

There is precedent from first lap incidents and overtakes, around leeway on the first lap when space is tight and a precent from this year with Russell completing an overtake on Piastri off track. I want to try to understand how and why the stewards treated this differently to the overtake on Perez when Hamilton went off track and to when Russell passed Piastri off track on the run off in Spain this year. That and the fact that the Hamilton/Norris/Russell overtake was a more complex manoeuvre which asks the question, when is an overtake complete? And I'm kind of hung up on understanding that. Many of the replies instead claim to be able to read Hamiltons mind or state reasons that aren't what any steward would consider. Going too fast isn't an answer, you're supposed to go faster, if you can demonstrate the car has shed it's speed at the apex then this isn't a valid argument and I'm not sure that that conclusion is that subjective.

So I agree that the Russell place needed to go back, I guess my point was that it was a viable attempt at an overtake that didn't pan out, so how does this affect Lando and why does it invalidate the Lando overtake? And the dilema you state at the end is the same as mine. Which is why I ask the question what makes an overtake complete and valid.

Hamilton had cleared Lando's car and turned in to the corner and pointed to the next apex. it's a very strong argument for a complete move. So my only thought is that they treated it as a single move, which seems odd, and that this then decided the two moves on who owned the space into the next corner or out of the last, which was Russell hence the onus on who was on the inside or on the outside. It seems Hamiltons turn right was just a smidge before halfway between the Apex'.

It's inconsistent with other decisions and whilst I couldn't think what they were, others had helpfully posted them in other threads and the outcome I'm interested from this is to understand it more, not to dispute or complain.

it is what it is. Inconsistent, but the stewards would have had some sort of logic that I don't think has been hit on yet, but who knows.

[Just_a_fan]

Emotions often get in the way of common sense. The truth is, Hamilton had blistering pace for a number of laps but by the time he had passed Leclerc that blistering pace relative to Russell had all but disappeared. The gap stayed consistent for a few laps and then he was slightly faster until they both came up to Norris.

That is inaccurate. Gap increased to 2s after HAM passed LEC and HAM was 1.3s faster over the next 3 laps after which they remained in the DRS train until the end.

It was also quite visible to see on track. Russell had traction issues with the rears likely overheating while Hamilton was able to take tighter lines into corners.

I have just watched those moments now, after Hamilton passed Leclerc he was around 1.3 secs behind Russell, it then went up to around 1.8 secs and stabilized, Hamilton then started reeling him in and was around 1.1-1.3 secs behind by the time Russell had caught up to Norris. As I said, his blistering pace relative to Russell had disappeared by the time he passed Leclerc.

Hamilton was slower on only four laps - the first immediately after the pitstop (bringing the tyres in) and then 2 laps behind Leclerc (one of which was waiting for Russell to overtake) and then one behind Norris where Hamilton dropped a quarter second one lap before taking it back again the next lap.

Those are lap times, not just what it looks like on the screen.

https://en.mclarenf-1.com/2023/gp/s9158 ... s/840-482/

[BMMR61]

@mwillems - I don't expect to change your mind as you are pretty invested into particularly, the Norris part of the overtake. tbh I'm in two minds about the second part but first want to give my perspective on Lewis's placement and speed at the point George is turning right towards the second apex. George has every right to take the inside of the second apex to the right, Lewis well before this point had zero right to this line and knew it. So he was on a line he would be obligated to drop speed and pull in behind George, albeit on a far more left pointing trajectory. This line would have meant a very compromised exit speed by Lewis and probably even meant Lando would have blown past him on the straight if he genuinely tried to navigate the whole corner bailing from George's rear. His alternate action was what we saw.

So my dilemma on the Lando pass is does Lewis so compromise the RH part of the esses by a very speculative lunge that Lando would have on the optimum line blown past on the exit. It's very open to debate but we've seen all manner of rule interpretations to make this one seem not too out of the ordinary. I do disagree firmly with the notion that he didn't need to give back the place to George - slam dunk!

I'm not invested in the outcome. I'm invested in an open discussion around the riles and what makes it right or wrong. The frustration is that in the Mckaren Forim that is often not easy due to fans having a predetermined idea of what's right and not discussing what makes it right or wrong. Instead it's a case of expressing frustration that it is obvious when there it clearly is not or simply having the belief you can read hsmiltons mind or intentions, or saying ge is going too fast, which is not a breach of any rules and not any kind of answer.

There was a discussion around precedent from earlier in the season, around leeway on the first lap. Around what makes a move complete. My interest is in discussing and the stubbornness is in the fact the the replies in general are not doing this it is clearly different to how it was handled before, so I want to try to.u derstand how.

In the end I had the discussion in the Merc thread and got more sense there.

Starts with the notion "I'm not biased". WRONG statement always! Reality is, as I can see you know, is we all carry a bias, just some are nonsensical and we see lots of it here. I have forced myself to ignore several of the more ridiculous and a few more of the heavily biased. Incidentally I don't use the word "invested" as interchangeable with "biased".

Regards the pass, I doubt the Hamilton speed/trajectory would have carried him onto a viable line for the second half of the corner, even if all the cars were removed from the playing surface. Lewis of course, like every driver, says "he pushed me off" even of his own teammate. Of the attempted overtake on Russell I have no question it wasn't on - so what option for Lewis? I think you're right to question the Lando overtake. At the time I didn't think the penalty should be anything but giving one place back, not two. I did feel conflicted about the Lando overtake as he appeared to "get it done" before the turn in proper, but second thoughts and the context of the stewards decision make me curious to see further evidence. Was it a "wild lunge"? No, but could he get the exit done without sacrificing very significantly his exit speed. Maybe an extensive and repeated replay of helicopter footage could help envisage his trajectory without the cars in the way, seems a bit theoretical though. Also if Russell hadn't seized the line which he was entitled to, would both Mercs have been vulnerable to Norris cutting back under them on exit?

Regards the earlier discussion that was based on precedent is limited by how inconsistent the stewards decisions have been, including but not limited to, this year. The Leclerc pitlane blocking looked obvious to the naked eye, but no penalty. It looked absurd after the nitpicking McLaren decision in Canada I think it was. I think RedBull came away from the Singapore stewards room rather intact with qualifying blocking.

[mwillems]

@mwillems - I don't expect to change your mind as you are pretty invested into particularly, the Norris part of the overtake. tbh I'm in two minds about the second part but first want to give my perspective on Lewis's placement and speed at the point George is turning right towards the second apex. George has every right to take the inside of the second apex to the right, Lewis well before this point had zero right to this line and knew it. So he was on a line he would be obligated to drop speed and pull in behind George, albeit on a far more left pointing trajectory. This line would have meant a very compromised exit speed by Lewis and probably even meant Lando would have blown past him on the straight if he genuinely tried to navigate the whole corner bailing from George's rear. His alternate action was what we saw.

So my dilemma on the Lando pass is does Lewis so compromise the RH part of the esses by a very speculative lunge that Lando would have on the optimum line blown past on the exit. It's very open to debate but we've seen all manner of rule interpretations to make this one seem not too out of the ordinary. I do disagree firmly with the notion that he didn't need to give back the place to George - slam dunk!

I'm not invested in the outcome. I'm invested in an open discussion around the riles and what makes it right or wrong. The frustration is that in the Mckaren Forim that is often not easy due to fans having a predetermined idea of what's right and not discussing what makes it right or wrong. Instead it's a case of expressing frustration that it is obvious when there it clearly is not or simply having the belief you can read hsmiltons mind or intentions, or saying ge is going too fast, which is not a breach of any rules and not any kind of answer.

There was a discussion around precedent from earlier in the season, around leeway on the first lap. Around what makes a move complete. My interest is in discussing and the stubbornness is in the fact the the replies in general are not doing this it is clearly different to how it was handled before, so I want to try to.u derstand how.

In the end I had the discussion in the Merc thread and got more sense there.

Starts with the notion "I'm not biased". WRONG statement always! Reality is, as I can see you know, is we all carry a bias, just some are nonsensical and we see lots of it here. I have forced myself to ignore several of the more ridiculous and a few more of the heavily biased. Incidentally I don't use the word "invested" as interchangeable with "biased".

Regards the pass, I doubt the Hamilton speed/trajectory would have carried him onto a viable line for the second half of the corner, even if all the cars were removed from the playing surface. Lewis of course, like every driver, says "he pushed me off" even of his own teammate. Of the attempted overtake on Russell I have no question it wasn't on - so what option for Lewis? I think you're right to question the Lando overtake. At the time I didn't think the penalty should be anything but giving one place back, not two. I did feel conflicted about the Lando overtake as he appeared to "get it done" before the turn in proper, but second thoughts and the context of the stewards decision make me curious to see further evidence. Was it a "wild lunge"? No, but could he get the exit done without sacrificing very significantly his exit speed. Maybe an extensive and repeated replay of helicopter footage could help envisage his trajectory without the cars in the way, seems a bit theoretical though. Also if Russell hadn't seized the line which he was entitled to, would both Mercs have been vulnerable to Norris cutting back under them on exit?

Regards the earlier discussion that was based on precedent is limited by how inconsistent the stewards decisions have been, including but not limited to, this year. The Leclerc pitlane blocking looked obvious to the naked eye, but no penalty. It looked absurd after the nitpicking McLaren decision in Canada I think it was. I think RedBull came away from the Singapore stewards room rather intact with qualifying blocking.

I'm a Mclaren fan so I am biased and I never stated otherwise, but on this I have a niggling doubt around the decision so my bias is to question it with sensible reasons where something feels inconsistent, which is why we are here- and it has been demonstrated to be inconsistent. This goes against my usual bias which would typically lean towards Lando and Mclaren. I suppose if there is a bias or lack of trust to be found it is against the stewards, but I think that is well founded...

Around the speed an trajectory, Alonso carried the same speed and trajectory and made the corner, some of which can be seen from the gif. But he didn't have the same car to his left, which is why I hadn't pondered on that too much.

[mwillems]

Same speed and trajectory at the apex and after, to be clear, not on entry, but Hamilton had shed his speed by then to match the speed of everyone around him once shortly after entering the corner,

[FittingMechanics]

I do think it is one of those where you can see it both ways, Hamilton was ahead and would have easily made the corner without Russel, but the same can be said for Lando - he would have probably been able to brake later without a train of cars in front of him. This means Hamilton needs to slow down and make the corner, probably by slotting into the "train".

In the gifs above we can see that a bunch of cars behind Hamilton are on the same line - I think all of them made the corner.

I can fully understand the stewards which put Hamilton under investigation - it is a slippery slope if anyone can make a "second" line that disappears and keep the position. It would become harder and harder to judge if someone was slowing down enough for the corner, it is easier to just take away this option and force people keep on the track.

Usually going around the bollard should get you to lose positions. Probably easiest way to solve that.

[Astro85]

That is inaccurate. Gap increased to 2s after HAM passed LEC and HAM was 1.3s faster over the next 3 laps after which they remained in the DRS train until the end.

It was also quite visible to see on track. Russell had traction issues with the rears likely overheating while Hamilton was able to take tighter lines into corners.

I have just watched those moments now, after Hamilton passed Leclerc he was around 1.3 secs behind Russell, it then went up to around 1.8 secs and stabilized, Hamilton then started reeling him in and was around 1.1-1.3 secs behind by the time Russell had caught up to Norris. As I said, his blistering pace relative to Russell had disappeared by the time he passed Leclerc.

Hamilton was slower on only four laps - the first immediately after the pitstop (bringing the tyres in) and then 2 laps behind Leclerc (one of which was waiting for Russell to overtake) and then one behind Norris where Hamilton dropped a quarter second one lap before taking it back again the next lap.

Those are lap times, not just what it looks like on the screen.

https://en.mclarenf-1.com/2023/gp/s9158 ... s/840-482/

You're stating the obvious, I know full well Hamilton was faster on the last stint, but, this is not ghost racing on F1 games, it's one thing catching, it's another thing passing.

And, as I said, the 7.5 tenths he lost to Russell in the space of two laps was likely very costly in the grand scheme of things, had he not he may have got DRS before Russell caught Norris.

[FittingMechanics]

Same speed and trajectory at the apex and after, to be clear, not on entry, but Hamilton had shed his speed by then to match the speed of everyone around him once shortly after entering the corner,

I do agree with that but so did everyone behind him (Alonso, Haas, ...) - yet they did not speed off across the runoff area.

[chrisc90]

Does anyone know why the Merc team have stopped going up to the podium celebrations? Second time this year now for Lewis.

Got to say, that must be heart breaking not being able to share the podium celebrations with your team.
Definitely got to give some credit to Ferrari and McLaren for celebrating with Lewis.

[mwillems]

Same speed and trajectory at the apex and after, to be clear, not on entry, but Hamilton had shed his speed by then to match the speed of everyone around him once shortly after entering the corner,

I do agree with that but so did everyone behind him (Alonso, Haas, ...) - yet they did not speed off across the runoff area.

Indeed but why did the stewards consider that part of the move on Lando and why is it inconsistent with other decisions in more simple situations in this race and out. It doesn't seem clear to me what a complete overtake was. As I said he'd totally passed Lando and cleared his car, made the apex and pointed the next apex and then he couldn't complete the next attack. Why isn't that a complete overtake on Lando according to the rules when others and Hamilton can overtake a single person off track and retain position, and have done on many occassions this year?

So the two things that won't get answered really are why was this inconsistent with how this was treated earlier in the season when it was even more slam dunk.. and what defines a complete move or what is the logic behind a complete move because the decision here looks a little unclear, especially in comparison with other overtakes.

[mwillems]

If you wanted to put a tin foil hat on, you might suggest the decisions might have been made with one eye on what would make the race interesting, but of course I wouldn't accuse the stewards or FIA of that

[mwillems]

I do think it is one of those where you can see it both ways, Hamilton was ahead and would have easily made the corner without Russel, but the same can be said for Lando - he would have probably been able to brake later without a train of cars in front of him. This means Hamilton needs to slow down and make the corner, probably by slotting into the "train".

In the gifs above we can see that a bunch of cars behind Hamilton are on the same line - I think all of them made the corner.

I can fully understand the stewards which put Hamilton under investigation - it is a slippery slope if anyone can make a "second" line that disappears and keep the position. It would become harder and harder to judge if someone was slowing down enough for the corner, it is easier to just take away this option and force people keep on the track.

Usually going around the bollard should get you to lose positions. Probably easiest way to solve that.

I missed this sorry, it is a good point.


I understand the logic in it's own, I don't understand the logic in terms of decisions we often see including at this race and races previously, it seems far more stringent than the other direct example, from other lap one incidents and from a Ham overtake in this race. That's not to say there aren't examples of tough decisions on lap 1, but in this case we have a direct example of the type of move.

If I look at this incident in isolation, I can totally understand it like everyone here. if I look at it in terms of racing we often see, I don't understand it, it is a type of decision I don't think I have seen before, or recollect.

[FittingMechanics]

I missed this sorry, it is a good point.


I understand the logic in it's own, I don't understand the logic in terms of decisions we often see including at this race and races previously, it seems far more stringent than the other direct example, from other lap one incidents and from a Ham overtake in this race. That's not to say there aren't examples of tough decisions on lap 1, but in this case we have a direct example of the type of move.

If I look at this incident in isolation, I can totally understand it like everyone here. if I look at it in terms of racing we often see, I don't understand it, it is a type of decision I don't think I have seen before, or recollect.

If I am not mistaken, they change stewards every race. I think that is part of the problem as they will inevitably have different opinions on situations.

[mwillems]

I missed this sorry, it is a good point.


I understand the logic in it's own, I don't understand the logic in terms of decisions we often see including at this race and races previously, it seems far more stringent than the other direct example, from other lap one incidents and from a Ham overtake in this race. That's not to say there aren't examples of tough decisions on lap 1, but in this case we have a direct example of the type of move.

If I look at this incident in isolation, I can totally understand it like everyone here. if I look at it in terms of racing we often see, I don't understand it, it is a type of decision I don't think I have seen before, or recollect.

If I am not mistaken, they change stewards every race. I think that is part of the problem as they will inevitably have different opinions on situations.

Yes totally, this is part of the problem. They do they have a database of moves that they classify so they can easily identify where they need to keep consistent, but who knows how easy that is to apply.

On the whole I think there we some curious decisions around this race.