2019 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal June 7-9

[mzso]

I'll also say again that I think Vettel drove and absolute masterclass of a race, even if he made that one mistake. His car was evidently extremely difficult to drive and the pressure of holding back a faster Mercedes in the hands of Hamilton immense. Definitely the driver of the day for me.

I definitely wouldn't use a hyperbole like this, especially that just in the previous race Hamilton brought home a car in far more torturous circumstances and constant attacks on a track with even less room for errors.

[cooken]

What is the evidence that Vettel's car was any more difficult to drive than anyone else's? I don't recall him looking particularly ragged at any point other than the adventure across the grass.

[Phil]

Maybe. But I'm judging and have concluded this from the onboard footage from Vettel. He was right at the limit, every lap. And I also think the pressure is significant, which would impact any driver. That IMO deserves a lot of respect. Sure, Hamilton drove extremely well too - it took that drive to put Vettel under pressure in the first place. But as I suspected prior to the race, the Mercedes was quite a bit stronger in race trim than the Ferrari and I think this was quite evident throughout the race, even if the Ferrari was crucially faster on the straight that would have prevented a legitimate pass.

All IMO of course.

[mzso]

BTW did anyone realize that Renault engaged team-orders to stop Hulkenberg from challenging Ricciardo?

Yeah. But Ferrari's "forgetfulness" and shoving Leclerc back as "strategy" is more outrageous.

I sort of understand that Renault didn't want any unnecessary risks whatsoever with the garbage start they had for the season...

(Also people keep missing the fact that Vettel clipped the grass before the turn, which might explain loosing the rear a few moments later.)

Leclerc is on a same kind of development as Verstappen I think. Fast, a lot of self confidence but still those expensive mistakes like Baku and Monaco.

I firmly disagree. Leclerc was more level headed from the start and never went into ultra-high risk moves.
And he only made one expensive mistake, in Baku. In Monace the team wasted his race. There was no point in being cautious. He wouldn't have gotten any points anyway without taking these risks.

Everyone was okay with the Verstappen rule added for weaving under braking.

Added, later. In the race he got a time penalty, meanwhile Vettel went on one of his pathetic tantrums...

The problem isn't the rules, the problem is that there was a more elegant penalty that wouldn't have sacrificed the battle these two champions were having.

This is false. That does not exist as a penalty. This was the mildest penalty they had. Giving up a position is for when a driver overtakes inappropriately, by cutting a corner for example. And it's not a penalty, but something they do to avoid penalties.
I'm all for making it a penalty though. Post race time penalties result in drivers finishing in the wrong order, which suck.

[Shrieker]

Everyone was okay with the Verstappen rule added for weaving under braking. See it's not about the rules and I actually think, demonstrably so that the stewards have left a lot more incidents go (perhaps's under Liberty's direction) and things have been considerably better for it. It's just that people didn't like this outcome. I was one of the 99% of fans on Sunday actually rooting for Vettel, because I was thoroughly enjoying the race long battle. But it wasn't to be.

If anything is to be gained here is that people would rather see a penalty that allows the drivers to continue to fight instead of the automatic 5 seconds added. Make Ferrari hand the position over since that's what would have happened had he not blocked Hamilton. The problem isn't the rules, the problem is that there was a more elegant penalty that wouldn't have sacrificed the battle these two champions were having.

It's a shame that so many fans can't see beyond their own points of view. Maybe with some time.

Concurred. A penalty was warranted, but maybe handing the position over was a better penalty. If two drivers/cars are evenly matched, a five sec. penalty is basically a death knell - especially if they aren't going to pit anymore as was the case.

With such a penalty in place, there would still be sufficient incentive for a driver to not block the racing line upon rejoining to prevent a rival from overtaking, since they would be forced to yield the position anyway. On the downside, I can see this getting abused by one driver for example to help his team mate etc. (obviously wasn't the case last Sunday).

[Wynters]

BTW did anyone realize that Renault engaged team-orders to stop Hulkenberg from challenging Ricciardo?

Indeed. It made perfect sense, Hulk was faster but why take the risk of hurting a crucial haul of points for them. It's sad from a racing perspective but extremely logical from a team one.

[Phil]

Yeah. But Ferrari's "forgetfulness" and shoving Leclerc back as "strategy" is more outrageous.

From what I understand, pitting Leclerc could have put him into P2, but it might not. The question is the pit window, which I think didn't exist. The problem was Bottas running further behind. Vettel pitted at pretty much the first opportunity when they had cleared Bottas. Hamilton wouldn't have, hence they left him out (though one would imagine they could have simply ordered Bottas to make sure Hamilton does not lose time). Leclerc was that bit further behind so he would have definitely come out behind Bottas. So pitting Leclerc at that moment would not have given him P2, assuming he would have lost time behind him.

However, by keeping Leclerc out, they could have benefited massively from a safety car situation which could have put him into P1. Obviously, that didn't happen, but considering the above, I think it made sense to keep Leclerc out.

[The Black Knight]

I remember a couple of years ago, a young Valentino Rossi in MotoGP got a ten second timed penalty while leading the race (I cannot remember year or track).

Instead of complaining over the radio about it, he drove an amazing final section of the race and built a gap of ten seconds to win anyway.

This is what Vettel should have at least tried to do on Sunday.

He did not have the car to Do that. That Was clearly visible. Vettel usually does that with the i
right car.

He didn’t even try though, just cried over the radio instead.

[Phil]

He had to save fuel.

[Big Tea]

I have let this simmer a while before adding my 2d worth, but I feel even though the letter of the law says 'penalty' it should not have bee applied in the interest of the sport.
Had they made a rapid decision not to penalise, we would have had a much better race, so even the team, who would lose out financially from missing points would still gain longer term due to more interest in the races.

Having said that, just as an observation,- had Seb taken that line on a qualli lap, his time would be deleted, so...

[izzy]

I have let this simmer a while before adding my 2d worth, but I feel even though the letter of the law says 'penalty' it should not have bee applied in the interest of the sport.
Had they made a rapid decision not to penalise, we would have had a much better race, so even the team, who would lose out financially from missing points would still gain longer term due to more interest in the races.

Having said that, just as an observation,- had Seb taken that line on a qualli lap, his time would be deleted, so...

But are you really saying they ought to tailor the penalties to give the best show?

[maxxer]

Everyone was okay with the Verstappen rule added for weaving under braking. See it's not about the rules and I actually think, demonstrably so that the stewards have left a lot more incidents go (perhaps's under Liberty's direction) and things have been considerably better for it. It's just that people didn't like this outcome. I was one of the 99% of fans on Sunday actually rooting for Vettel, because I was thoroughly enjoying the race long battle. But it wasn't to be.

If anything is to be gained here is that people would rather see a penalty that allows the drivers to continue to fight instead of the automatic 5 seconds added. Make Ferrari hand the position over since that's what would have happened had he not blocked Hamilton. The problem isn't the rules, the problem is that there was a more elegant penalty that wouldn't have sacrificed the battle these two champions were having.

It's a shame that so many fans can't see beyond their own points of view. Maybe with some time.

If they can be gentlemen and teams we could remove the 5 second penalty.
Just give up the position you are fighting for.
If not get an official drive through penalty with points on license.
Vettel would have then hooked up to Hamilton and have DRS.
But drs doesnt work on such a short track because you get it anyway when you are lapping someone and once you have it you have it for 3 sections.

[Just_a_fan]

I feel even though the letter of the law says 'penalty' it should not have bee applied in the interest of the sport.

How is ignoring the rules "in the interest of the sport"? Any other rules we should let people ignore "in the interest of the sport"? Do we just pick the guys who can ignore rules based on their place in the points standings? Perhaps the fewer points you have, the more rules can be ignored. Score each rule and let the teams choose which one to ignore.

"Hey, we've got 5 penalty-free points available. On the list that means we can have a bit more fuel or cut off three chicanes. What should we choose?"



"In the interest of the sport." Really?

[Big Tea]

I have let this simmer a while before adding my 2d worth, but I feel even though the letter of the law says 'penalty' it should not have bee applied in the interest of the sport.
Had they made a rapid decision not to penalise, we would have had a much better race, so even the team, who would lose out financially from missing points would still gain longer term due to more interest in the races.

Having said that, just as an observation,- had Seb taken that line on a qualli lap, his time would be deleted, so...

But are you really saying they ought to tailor the penalties to give the best show?

No, but not to shoot the sport in the foot. It has been done in reverse with disrepute, so a little 'tweak' is not a huge negative game changer. I have to stress though that this has to be applied sensibly ( another page long article in its self, I know ) and not where there has been blatant danger and we, and the drivers, press etc have to realise the stewards have a difficult job and be prepared to cut them a little slack in the way Charley used his descresion to allow a marginal car to race today but fix it for next week.

(This is an undefendable position for me to take as there will be fans of both drivers and neutrals all having their own views.)

[roon]

I feel even though the letter of the law says 'penalty' it should not have bee applied in the interest of the sport.

How is ignoring the rules "in the interest of the sport"? Any other rules we should let people ignore "in the interest of the sport"? Do we just pick the guys who can ignore rules based on their place in the points standings? Perhaps the fewer points you have, the more rules can be ignored. Score each rule and let the teams choose which one to ignore.

"Hey, we've got 5 penalty-free points available. On the list that means we can have a bit more fuel or cut off three chicanes. What should we choose?"



"In the interest of the sport." Really?

If the rule is poorly crafted, then it actually would be "in the interest of" to not apply it although this puts the stewards at odds with the governing body. Eventually the rulebook can be amended and detrimental rules be addressed.

Not saying it needs to happen in this context, but BT isn't simply wrong here.