2024 Austrian Grand Prix - Spielberg, June 28 - 30

[CMSMJ1]

I've deleted several nonsense and fairly low quality posts - less of the direct personal bitching please.

[Just_a_fan]

The whole "squeezing another on to the kerbs" argument can be countered as it I'd about track limits: if there was a wall there, would you do it? Answer, obviously, is "no". So you shouldn't do it here either.

This acceptance of bully-boy tactics has, in my opinion, reduced the quality of wheel-to-wheel racing in many cases.

[TFSA]

The whole "squeezing another on to the kerbs" argument can be countered as it I'd about track limits: if there was a wall there, would you do it? Answer, obviously, is "no". So you shouldn't do it here either.

This acceptance of bully-boy tactics has, in my opinion, reduced the quality of wheel-to-wheel racing in many cases.

Treating walls and track limits the same is ridiculous. By the same argument, track limits should also be policed inversely then, so that if any part of any wheel touches outside of the white line, you get your lap deleted.

Trying to treat the two the same is neither productive, nor appropriate. Drivers do not drive street circuits and circuits with runoff the same way, so they shouldn't be expected to battle them in the same way either.


EDIT: And i believe the same is true for stuff that can be considered in-between, like gravel and grass. Pushing a driver onto grass is not in the same category as pushing them unto a kerb or painted tarmac.

[chrisc90]

So to counter that point just_a_fan….

If the white line is the limit of the track, and people shouldn’t be pushed over it with their outermost tyres. Should we also apply the leaving the track and gaining an advantage to say the final 2 corners in Austria? Because it allows you to open up the corners and carry a faster speed through them.


There seems to be so many definitions of the track, track limits, leaving the track and gaining an advantage, if you applied the definition of the word track fully.

[Edax]

The whole "squeezing another on to the kerbs" argument can be countered as it I'd about track limits: if there was a wall there, would you do it? Answer, obviously, is "no". So you shouldn't do it here either.

This acceptance of bully-boy tactics has, in my opinion, reduced the quality of wheel-to-wheel racing in many cases.

I would invite you to have a look at these laps from Villeneuve and Arnoux.

I would count at least 4-5 offenses that would certainly be punished today.
Moving under braking
Weaving
Denying a car space
Pushing a car off track
Overtaking off track

https://youtu.be/ii6H0MktrOg?si=OVzZy2oNgV6CKx8Y

I don’t think the racing necessarily got dirtier or the regulations more relaxed, it is just the public opinion has shifted.

[chrisc90]

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGesroy9Q/

[Sevach]

I do get the feeling Max expected Lando to go over the curb in the braking zone, which isn't something he's obligated to do but is "normal" here.
"Putting the squeeze on" is a dangerous game that sometimes due to miscalculation, or the driver attacking not doing what you expect can lead to contact.

From the FIA guideline of judge the move not the consequences, 10s was correct, Max squeeze is what caused the collision and 10s was the norm for minor collisions, which this was.
Small touch with big consequences and for a important position.

I wonder if we'll see new directives on squeezes and dive bombs.

[Seanspeed]

The start. Norris squeezes Russell in the brake zone. Russell avoids a collision by going off track. 

https://i.postimg.cc/50j7W95t/Norris-sq ... nboard.gif

This alone destroys every narrative about how reckless Verstappen was.

If Russell had refused to move left, would that have made Norris some villain in the situation?

[AR3-GP]

I do get the feeling Max expected Lando to go over the curb in the braking zone, which isn't something he's obligated to do but is "normal" here.
"Putting the squeeze on" is a dangerous game that sometimes due to miscalculation, or the driver attacking not doing what you expect can lead to contact.

From the FIA guideline of judge the move not the consequences, 10s was correct, Max squeeze is what caused the collision and 10s was the norm for minor collisions, which this was.
Small touch with big consequences and for a important position.

I wonder if we'll see new directives on squeezes and dive bombs.

I agree, it was a relatively innocuous and common thing with unexpectedly big consequences. Penalty is fair and consistent with how this has been treated in the past.

What they failed to address adequately was whether or not Norris gained a lasting advantage from his first off track lunge. With this lunge, he reduced the gap to Verstappen by shoving both off, used the DRS on the run to T4, and only then did he carefully let Verstappen back through in a manner such that the gap between them became smaller than it had ever been under normal circumstances (Was something like 0.050s after T4). This kept him even closer than before for DRS on the next lap.

This is similar to Verstappen cheekily trying to give Hamilton the position back just before the DRS line in Jeddah '21, so he could then re-overtake with DRS (stewards disallowed it) or Hamilton cheekily letting Raikkonen through in Spa that one year after the illegal bus stop pass. letting them back through" is not enough. You have to give up the "lasting advantage" that you gained. If Norris made that mistake on his own, he would have dropped out of DRS.

[ab_f1]

The start. Norris squeezes Russell in the brake zone. Russell avoids a collision by going off track. 

https://i.postimg.cc/50j7W95t/Norris-sq ... nboard.gif

This alone destroys every narrative about how reckless Verstappen was.

If Russell had refused to move left, would that have made Norris some villain in the situation?

If VER followed the trajectory Norris did in above or Lec did in previously referenced video below it would be fine.

https://i.redd.it/6mrgslk89r9d1.gif

In both cases drivers on the inside are following racing line and there is no intent to not let driver on outside to make move.
But VER does not turn right but rather turns left slightly intending to crowd his competitor out.

Also someone referenced Peter Windsor analysis before. Having watched it, he seems to suggest that while VER broke the rules, the rules are not correct.

[TFSA]

What they failed to address adequately was whether or not Norris gained a lasting advantage from his first off track lunge. With this lunge, he reduced the gap to Verstappen by shoving both off, used the DRS on the run to T4, and only then did he carefully let Verstappen back through in a manner such that the gap between them became smaller than it had ever been under normal circumstances (Was something like 0.050s after T4). This kept him even closer than before for DRS on the next lap.

To me, divebombs should be treated the same way as weaving on the straigths, moving under braking or track limits should be treated: As a driving standards violation.

This means that a driver should get the black & white flag for a divebomb that pushes the other driver off the track, even if he gives the position back or fails to hold the lead - and 2nd strike it's a penalty.

In fact, this little rule change could solve many online discussions, and likely also disencourage drivers from doing that, while still maintaining the ability for them to race. A few drivers (including Verstappen and Norris) might probably also have to change their driving style a bit to account for that, and that's not a bad thing.

[AR3-GP]

What they failed to address adequately was whether or not Norris gained a lasting advantage from his first off track lunge. With this lunge, he reduced the gap to Verstappen by shoving both off, used the DRS on the run to T4, and only then did he carefully let Verstappen back through in a manner such that the gap between them became smaller than it had ever been under normal circumstances (Was something like 0.050s after T4). This kept him even closer than before for DRS on the next lap.

To me, divebombs should be treated the same way as weaving on the straigths, moving under braking or track limits should be treated: As a driving standards violation.

This means that a driver should get the black & white flag for a divebomb that pushes the other driver off the track, even if he gives the position back or fails to hold the lead - and 2nd strike it's a penalty.

In fact, this little rule change could solve many online discussions, and likely also disencourage drivers from doing that, while still maintaining the ability for them to race. A few drivers (including Verstappen and Norris) might probably also have to change their driving style a bit to account for that, and that's not a bad thing.

I have never been a fan of "black and white" flag being shown to a driver due to a driving standard violation. Why? Because it means that every driver can violate driving standards once per race without a material penalty. When you only need "1 move" to decide a points paying position or a win, this "freedom" to secure that position with an illegitimate move doesn't seem right to me.

[Watto]

I do get the feeling Max expected Lando to go over the curb in the braking zone, which isn't something he's obligated to do but is "normal" here.
"Putting the squeeze on" is a dangerous game that sometimes due to miscalculation, or the driver attacking not doing what you expect can lead to contact.

From the FIA guideline of judge the move not the consequences, 10s was correct, Max squeeze is what caused the collision and 10s was the norm for minor collisions, which this was.
Small touch with big consequences and for a important position.

I wonder if we'll see new directives on squeezes and dive bombs.

I agree, it was a relatively innocuous and common thing with unexpectedly big consequences. Penalty is fair and consistent with how this has been treated in the past.

What they failed to address adequately was whether or not Norris gained a lasting advantage from his first off track lunge. With this lunge, he reduced the gap to Verstappen by shoving both off, used the DRS on the run to T4, and only then did he carefully let Verstappen back through in a manner such that the gap between them became smaller than it had ever been under normal circumstances (Was something like 0.050s after T4). This kept him even closer than before for DRS on the next lap.

This is similar to Verstappen cheekily trying to give Hamilton the position back just before the DRS line in Jeddah '21, so he could then re-overtake with DRS (stewards disallowed it) or Hamilton cheekily letting Raikkonen through in Spa that one year after the illegal bus stop pass. letting them back through" is not enough. You have to give up the "lasting advantage" that you gained. If Norris made that mistake on his own, he would have dropped out of DRS.

I agree with much of this.


I think Max deserved his penalty for causing a collision was primary his fault.


But lando exceeding track limits and the stewarts taking to long to make call when I think it was clear also played into the fiasco. in quali they can almost instantly make the call for some reason in the race it takes 5-6 laps to make the same decision.

Understand there are some that are more grey that need longer investigations don't think that was one of the,

While I do think it was poor from Max here too. I really think the hes a dirty racer has been a bit unfair too. Hes super aggressive so is always going to push limits but think when he was challenged by Charles in 22 it was clean between them too - maybe because Max knew/thought Charles would get his elbows out so to speak and didn't think Lando would here but learnt a lesson.

I think both were at fault for elements of what happened, so I really don't think either side taking the highroad is that fair either.

[TFSA]

I have never been a fan of "black and white" flag being shown to a driver due to a driving standard violation. Why? Because it means that every driver can violate driving standards once per race without a material penalty. When you only need "1 move" to decide a points paying position or a win, this "freedom" to secure that position with an illegitimate move doesn't seem right to me.

You have to remember that this is in addition to whatever penalty might be incurred if you don't give the position back. So the flag is given, even if the move fails, or you give the position back afterwards.

You could also say the same about track limits. If Norris catches Verstappen with 3 track limit violations, and Verstappen has 0, isn't it a legitimate question to ask if he deserves to be behind him in the first place? Should track limits also be an instant penalty?

The flag is appropriate in some situations, first because some offenses are only a very minor advantage, and second because we gotta give drivers some leeway in some situations to be able to make mistakes or push the rules a bit.

[dialtone]

I do get the feeling Max expected Lando to go over the curb in the braking zone, which isn't something he's obligated to do but is "normal" here.
"Putting the squeeze on" is a dangerous game that sometimes due to miscalculation, or the driver attacking not doing what you expect can lead to contact.

From the FIA guideline of judge the move not the consequences, 10s was correct, Max squeeze is what caused the collision and 10s was the norm for minor collisions, which this was.
Small touch with big consequences and for a important position.

I wonder if we'll see new directives on squeezes and dive bombs.

I agree, it was a relatively innocuous and common thing with unexpectedly big consequences. Penalty is fair and consistent with how this has been treated in the past.

What they failed to address adequately was whether or not Norris gained a lasting advantage from his first off track lunge. With this lunge, he reduced the gap to Verstappen by shoving both off, used the DRS on the run to T4, and only then did he carefully let Verstappen back through in a manner such that the gap between them became smaller than it had ever been under normal circumstances (Was something like 0.050s after T4). This kept him even closer than before for DRS on the next lap.

This is similar to Verstappen cheekily trying to give Hamilton the position back just before the DRS line in Jeddah '21, so he could then re-overtake with DRS (stewards disallowed it) or Hamilton cheekily letting Raikkonen through in Spa that one year after the illegal bus stop pass. letting them back through" is not enough. You have to give up the "lasting advantage" that you gained. If Norris made that mistake on his own, he would have dropped out of DRS.

I agree with much of this.


I think Max deserved his penalty for causing a collision was primary his fault.


But lando exceeding track limits and the stewarts taking to long to make call when I think it was clear also played into the fiasco. in quali they can almost instantly make the call for some reason in the race it takes 5-6 laps to make the same decision.

Understand there are some that are more grey that need longer investigations don't think that was one of the,

While I do think it was poor from Max here too. I really think the hes a dirty racer has been a bit unfair too. Hes super aggressive so is always going to push limits but think when he was challenged by Charles in 22 it was clean between them too - maybe because Max knew/thought Charles would get his elbows out so to speak and didn't think Lando would here but learnt a lesson.

I think both were at fault for elements of what happened, so I really don't think either side taking the highroad is that fair either.

No supporter of RBR can complain about stewards taking their time after the Jeddah SC restart where Perez was ahead of position and waited after the restart to give position back allowing Max to stay close to LEC while being defended by PER.

Or whoever complained about NOR’s penalty served before retirement, total nonsense I agree but PER came back from retirement to serve a penalty.

If there is a team out there that plays with the rules and the stewards delays it’s RBR.