Throwing your helmet at a competitor as they drive by on the track won't be far behind!
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Formula One has seen yet another controversial result of a Grand Prix as Lewis Hamiton inherited the Canadian GP race win after a controversial 5s penalty for leader Sebastian Vettel. An infuriated Vettel was classified second, ahead of Leclerc in third.
Throwing your helmet at a competitor as they drive by on the track won't be far behind!
I remember some rumours at the start of the season that their PU is quite thirsty. Maybe that was true and it still is the case.digitalrurouni wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 23:04Or their PU is not as efficient as the Mercedes PU.
you're not very polite are you? And it's not ageist to point out they make more mistakes at 21 than when they're older. I thought everyone understood that. What's the youngest ever wdc? 23, not 21, and what's the average wdc? about 30, not 21. and Max is just the same, totally alpha, but 21
True. I missed that.Restomaniac wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 21:57LeClerc couldn’t pit earlier as there wasn’t the gap. That’s was why Hamilton couldn’t come in the very next lap after Vettel either.
A time penalty for rejoining in an unsafe manner would be an incentive enough not to do it, but if let's say you're only obligated to relinquish your position when you do it, you might rejoin unsafely and retain your position anyway since the worst that can happen is being forced to relinquish your position. Ergo the position you kept illegally could be used to hamper the driver behind. Actually I think this was discussed here; Vettel could've held up Ham much more thru the twisty sections in sector 1 to help Lec catch him.
What was the Hamilton error you're referencing? Good point about gravel traps.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:39What if Vettel's mistake had mirrored Hamilton's from earlier in the weekend? Penalty on top of the error then would likely have been DNF. Harsh? Unfair?
There have been many on here, over the years, stating that drivers get away with mistakes too easily - many feel that coming off the track should result in a punishment e.g. a gravel trap. Had Vettel had to run through a gravel trap he'd have been "naturally penalised" and lost first place to Hamilton anyway.
As to what irks people, the irked people are either fans of the driver / team or people who felt that the race was ruined by the penalty. The reality is that if the penalty had been "natural" then the outcome would have been the same or worse. The "artificial" nature of the penalty didn't change the natural outcome of the race.
A clickbait article that fails to mention things get changed routinely and that the FIA need to deem that it's similar in function/weight/etc and they couldn't see any differences between what they used and what they replaced it with. Fundamentally it's hydraulics, it's a tube with a liquid in it. If they changed the brakes connected to them would be one thing, if they change the tubes connecting the brakes to the pedal with a different tube because they ran out of their newer version it would never get a penalty.
To be fair, they [Michael Schmidt] corrected the article that the parts didnt need to be identical, only in function, which they were.drunkf1fan wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 04:16A clickbait article that fails to mention things get changed routinely and that the FIA need to deem that it's similar in function/weight/etc and they couldn't see any differences between what they used and what they replaced it with. Fundamentally it's hydraulics, it's a tube with a liquid in it. If they changed the brakes connected to them would be one thing, if they change the tubes connecting the brakes to the pedal with a different tube because they ran out of their newer version it would never get a penalty.
>Apparently it was not exactly an identical specification in detail.
They add that in like that makes it difficult and dodgy, it's not, nowhere in the rules does it say identical at all. It's an article that seems built on the anti Mercedes feeling and trying to further cloud whether it was fair a Mercedes won again.
The car got out of shape and he hit the wall there in FP2 and gave himself a puncture. Lucky not to damage the car further.
“relinquish your position back?” it’s not like anybody was overtaken by somebody having cut a corner or by going off track. And to make that gentleman (whatshisname?) laugh some more, What was the difference in Canada from that of Monaco 2016?.Shrieker wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 23:35A time penalty for rejoining in an unsafe manner would be an incentive enough not to do it, but if let's say you're only obligated to relinquish your position when you do it, you might rejoin unsafely and retain your position anyway since the worst that can happen is being forced to relinquish your position. Ergo the position you kept illegally could be used to hamper the driver behind. Actually I think this was discussed here; Vettel could've held up Ham much more thru the twisty sections in sector 1 to help Lec catch him.
The Ferrari is more thirsty than the Merc. I recall they had a similar problem in Baku. In Canada Vettel appeared to be slightly faster than Lewis in the first stint, but in the second it is obvious he had to do more fuel saving and it hurt his pace a lot.
