2019 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal June 7-9

[Roman]

Well I believe the VET-Ham incident has been discussed in length here. Personlly while watching the race I was angry at the penalty, but not because it was justified ord not but because it robbed us from a great race finish. Also I had the feeling that you should punish somebody only for doing something he could have avoided. Therefore if the car was out of control I could not see a penalty, which behaviour do you want to have penalized? However, I do not want to get intod the discussion now whether it was ok or not, frankly I do not care. Its done and wont be changed.

Some other stray observations: Great race by Verstappen, rather poor performance by Gasly. Verstappen started 9th and finished 5th, Gasly started 5th and finished 8th. The strategy to start on hard tires was obviously ther better one as it can also be seen by Stroll: Started 18th and finished 9th

Strange DNF by Norris, does anybody know what happened there?

Last but not least: As the race was broadcasted at 8pm local time my wife decided to watch it with me. However, she got confused quickly with the different tires, DRS etc and lost interest. Maybe that is one of the problems of F1: Too complicated for the occasional viewer; therefore it is unlikely to win new fans?

[izzy]

Well I believe the VET-Ham incident has been discussed in length here. Personlly while watching the race I was angry at the penalty, but not because it was justified ord not but because it robbed us from a great race finish. Also I had the feeling that you should punish somebody only for doing something he could have avoided. Therefore if the car was out of control I could not see a penalty, which behaviour do you want to have penalized? However, I do not want to get intod the discussion now whether it was ok or not, frankly I do not care. Its done and wont be changed.

Last but not least: As the race was broadcasted at 8pm local time my wife decided to watch it with me. However, she got confused quickly with the different tires, DRS etc and lost interest. Maybe that is one of the problems of F1: Too complicated for the occasional viewer; therefore it is unlikely to win new fans?

So you don't want to discuss it, just post your opinion without anyone coming back and pointing out it's wrong? Cos the whole point is he could have avoided it, that's what the stewards decided when they analysed it

Personally i love F1 being complicated, i'd like a lot more data like tyre temperatures. Probably most things are more rewarding when it takes time to get into it

[Restomaniac]

I read Vettel had to save fuel, so he couldn't really turn it up and drive away. I think it was Mark Hughes GP review. Ferrari supposedly underfueled him because they thought there would be a safety car.

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.

The problem in Baku was that LeClerc was having to fuel save whilst being down on power IIRC.

[bonjon1979]

Well I believe the VET-Ham incident has been discussed in length here. Personlly while watching the race I was angry at the penalty, but not because it was justified ord not but because it robbed us from a great race finish. Also I had the feeling that you should punish somebody only for doing something he could have avoided. Therefore if the car was out of control I could not see a penalty, which behaviour do you want to have penalized? However, I do not want to get intod the discussion now whether it was ok or not, frankly I do not care. Its done and wont be changed.

Some other stray observations: Great race by Verstappen, rather poor performance by Gasly. Verstappen started 9th and finished 5th, Gasly started 5th and finished 8th. The strategy to start on hard tires was obviously ther better one as it can also be seen by Stroll: Started 18th and finished 9th

Strange DNF by Norris, does anybody know what happened there?

Last but not least: As the race was broadcasted at 8pm local time my wife decided to watch it with me. However, she got confused quickly with the different tires, DRS etc and lost interest. Maybe that is one of the problems of F1: Too complicated for the occasional viewer; therefore it is unlikely to win new fans?

Grosjean was out of control when he took out half the field at Spa, should he have avoided punishment because he's out of control? Vettel's actions caused him to rejoin the track in an unsafe manner. Either he was in control and chose to be unsafe or he was out of control and was still unsafe. The way the rules are written, both scenarios require a penalty to be given as the driver behind had to take avoiding action. We can argue whether or not the rule is correct but there is no real argument to be made with regard to the validity or not of the penalty with how the rules are written right now.

[Roman]

So you don't want to discuss it, just post your opinion without anyone coming back and pointing out it's wrong? Cos the whole point is he could have avoided it, that's what the stewards decided when they analysed it

Personally i love F1 being complicated, i'd like a lot more data like tyre temperatures. Probably most things are more rewarding when it takes time to get into it

Sorry I wasnt sufficiently clear: What I described were my feelings and thoughts immediately after the incident and when the penalty was handed out. This has changed after the race but the issue really has been discussed here now.

[Roman]

Grosjean was out of control when he took out half the field at Spa, should he have avoided punishment because he's out of control? Vettel's actions caused him to rejoin the track in an unsafe manner. Either he was in control and chose to be unsafe or he was out of control and was still unsafe. The way the rules are written, both scenarios require a penalty to be given as the driver behind had to take avoiding action. We can argue whether or not the rule is correct but there is no real argument to be made with regard to the validity or not of the penalty with how the rules are written right now.

I believe he did not receive a race ban because he entered the track unsafely but because he caused a collision (which he did while he was in perfect control of his car).

For this incident: If the rule does not diferentiate between in control or not then yes I believe it should be changed. In general a driver should only be penalized for something he (or his team) can control.

[Vasconia]

The great battle between Vettel and Hamilton plus the controversy gave us a great race which was something I had missed lately, this is pure F1. I was angry with Vettel´s penaly but it´s done so I don´t want to loose too much time. I still think that penalties are given with 0 consistency which is the biggest problema in my eyes.

Not a good race for McLaren with this strange failure for Norris and the forced bad strategy for Sainz.

And what about Magnussen? I still wait for the day HAAS Will star to think wisely and Will change both drivers, some many points lost, lack of respect from both, they surely need to change something.

[izzy]

So you don't want to discuss it, just post your opinion without anyone coming back and pointing out it's wrong? Cos the whole point is he could have avoided it, that's what the stewards decided when they analysed it

Personally i love F1 being complicated, i'd like a lot more data like tyre temperatures. Probably most things are more rewarding when it takes time to get into it

Sorry I wasnt sufficiently clear: What I described were my feelings and thoughts immediately after the incident and when the penalty was handed out. This has changed after the race but the issue really has been discussed here now.

yes it's cool i was just gently teasing, a bit, cos after all this is a forum and so it's never likely to work posting an opinion and then saying "The End"

it'll end when the last person but one doesn't want to post about it any more

personally i was suspicious the first time i saw it. Seb could've rejoined without bumping over the kerb after all, going beyond it to the end of the grass, but he needed to get back quickly to head off Lewis, which was the natural racer thing as Lewis said

[bonjon1979]

Grosjean was out of control when he took out half the field at Spa, should he have avoided punishment because he's out of control? Vettel's actions caused him to rejoin the track in an unsafe manner. Either he was in control and chose to be unsafe or he was out of control and was still unsafe. The way the rules are written, both scenarios require a penalty to be given as the driver behind had to take avoiding action. We can argue whether or not the rule is correct but there is no real argument to be made with regard to the validity or not of the penalty with how the rules are written right now.

I believe he did not receive a race ban because he entered the track unsafely but because he caused a collision (which he did while he was in perfect control of his car).

For this incident: If the rule does not diferentiate between in control or not then yes I believe it should be changed. In general a driver should only be penalized for something he (or his team) can control.

I'm rebutting your defence of a driving being blameless if he's not in control. Vettel was fully in control before he went off track because he took too much speed into the corner. That was his error and it led to a contravention of the rules.

[3jawchuck]

imagine if Vettel's and Hamilton's positions and actions by chance were transposed eg in the next race
the steward would take the race win from a man of Afro-Caribbean heritage and award it to a man of Caucasian heritage

I struggle to entertain how you actually managed to arrive at this point, in reponse to the post above it....unless of course there is some form of racial juxtaposition that you suffer with?

ATTN. MR MODERATOR
in the interests of dignity on this site you might like to delete my post 1832 hrs 11th June
and the consequent siskue2005 post 1851 hrs and sAx post 2027 hrs 11th June
and this post



to sAx .... (for now)
you have edited my post in a pretence of quoting it
so you can make a some weird point

I wrote about the thread's sudden and convenient enthusiasm for the bogus sanctity of Mr Pirro's ruling
(bogus because the FIA hasn't exactly covered itself against counter-arguments by interested parties)

to recast my point in standard-issue liberal terms that you might comprehend .....
imagine ten years hence the China East GP is the final race and ...
a Chinese driver and car can win the WDC and WCC if they remain in the 'Vettel' position ....
when an American driver and car (backed by Mr Trump's son-in-law) will otherwise win - from the 'Hamilton' position

would the Steward really make the same ruling ?
and if he/she did - what would be the consequences ?

What is this race baiting nonesense? The poster you originally replied to (Phil) meant black on white (should be black and white) in terms of lacking ambiguity, being clear cut. From context that is obvious, he did not mean it in terms of race.

[izzy]

I'm rebutting your defence of a driving being blameless if he's not in control. Vettel was fully in control before he went off track because he took too much speed into the corner. That was his error and it led to a contravention of the rules.

Yes, also he was in control anyway, after he came back on track. This is the video i was looking for, the overhead shot shows it perfectly, at 29-31s. At Settings, 0.25 speed it's totally obvious Seb was always aiming for the far side of the track, this is what the stewards were judging by:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqhX-ZzPhzo

[LM10]

I'm rebutting your defence of a driving being blameless if he's not in control. Vettel was fully in control before he went off track because he took too much speed into the corner. That was his error and it led to a contravention of the rules.

Yes, also he was in control anyway, after he came back on track. This is the video i was looking for, the overhead shot shows it perfectly, at 29-31s. At Settings, 0.25 speed it's totally obvious Seb was always aiming for the far side of the track, this is what the stewards were judging by:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqhX-ZzPhzo

Towards 31. second he got full control again. At that time, Hamilton was unintentionally squeezed and needed to brake because there already was not enough space for him. The point which made the stewards to decide how they eventually did, was that after the mentioned point Vettel kept on positioning his car towards the right side instead of left. This was definitely the reason for the decision, else it doesn't make sense.

[turbof1]

How?

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.

“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?.

From a morale (!!!) standpoint, truth to be told if you punish Vettel for his mistake, there is certainly an argument to be made that Hamilton should have been punished.

However, morale and ethics mean nothing, absolutely nothing in F1. What the drivers do is not judged ethically, but judged by the sporting regulations. Do those regulations always represent good behaviour, safety and sportmanship? Usually yes, but not always.

And that is why you get the difference between Hamilton and Vettel. There is no bias going, there is no favorism going on for Hamilton or Mercedes. There are people that are claiming that, but that's because they misunderstand the way the sport is judged (which frankly is not surprising because the regulations can be confusing).

Let me explain why Hamilton was not punished despite arguably unsportmanship behaviour. Hamilton left the track, just like Vettel, but crucially re-entered the track in a safe manner. He came back on the track between turn 10 and 11 of the Nouvelle Chicane, which is extremely low speed. The closing speed between the 2 was very low in those few meters. Hamilton was back on the track. However, the controversial point is that Hamilton was positioned very badly to exit turn 11, which gave Ricciardo a gap to dive into. Hamilton, having rejoined competition, proceeded to squeeze Ricciardo. He did leave a car width for Ricciardo there (and really not an inch more than that). The result was that Hamilton did not break a regulation. Even though the poor exit out of turn 11 was a direct consequence of him getting back on track on a poor approach line. Here is the video so you can check for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGzDkb3UW0w

Vettel however reëntered the track while the closing speed between him and Hamilton was really large because Hamilton exited his corner full on the throttle while Vettel was still loosing speed getting the car back under control. Hamilton was very obviously hindered by Vettel going back onto the track. That is what made it an unsafe return to the track.

Again this is according to the rules. One got punished while the other didn't because of these crucial but circumstantial details. The penalties are applied correct according to those rules. However, morally speaking you can perfectly argue the 2 situations are so similar it is not fair to have in one situation a penalty applied and not in the other. If turn 10 in Monaco exited into a straight and Hamilton did same pinching manoeuvre after rentering the track, that certainly would have been classified as a unsafe reëntry of the track, because the closing speed would have been much higher.

I do hate Vettel is now claiming "F1 is not the sport anymore I fell in love with". Clearly controversial ruling has happened as well when he was just a few years in F1. The last few years he has just been on the receiving end of it, while in other years others were. Spa 2008 immediately comes to mind. Him complaining about how the sport changed for the worst now that he receives this, again as can be classified controversial, penalty, is hypocritical. He had more than enough time to lament where the sport is going, but he didn't. Infact, should the reverse have happened, Hamilton in front going off track and Vettel being squeezed, he would have done the same as Hamilton, go on the radio to complain Hamilton returned unsafely to the track. Ferrari would have lotched protest, and they would have claimed that penalty was fair.

For the record, unsafe return to the track has nothing to do with gaining an advantage. Vettel was not punished for that.

[bonjon1979]

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.

“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?.

From a morale (!!!) standpoint, truth to be told if you punish Vettel for his mistake, there is certainly an argument to be made that Hamilton should have been punished.

However, morale and ethics mean nothing, absolutely nothing in F1. What the drivers do is not judged ethically, but judged by the sporting regulations. Do those regulations always represent good behaviour, safety and sportmanship? Usually yes, but not always.

And that is why you get the difference between Hamilton and Vettel. There is no bias going, there is no favorism going on for Hamilton or Mercedes. There are people that are claiming that, but that's because they misunderstand the way the sport is judged (which frankly is not surprising because the regulations can be confusing).

Let me explain why Hamilton was not punished despite arguably unsportmanship behaviour. Hamilton left the track, just like Vettel, but crucially re-entered the track in a safe manner. He came back on the track between turn 10 and 11 of the Nouvelle Chicane, which is extremely low speed. The closing speed between the 2 was very low in those few meters. Hamilton was back on the track. However, the controversial point is that Hamilton was positioned very badly to exit turn 11, which gave Ricciardo a gap to dive into. Hamilton, having rejoined competition, proceeded to squeeze Ricciardo. He did leave a car width for Ricciardo there (and really not an inch more than that). The result was that Hamilton did not break a regulation. Even though the poor exit out of turn 11 was a direct consequence of him getting back on track on a poor approach line. Here is the video so you can check for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGzDkb3UW0w

Vettel however reëntered the track while the closing speed between him and Hamilton was really large because Hamilton exited his corner full on the throttle while Vettel was still loosing speed getting the car back under control. Hamilton was very obviously hindered by Vettel going back onto the track. That is what made it an unsafe return to the track.

Again this is according to the rules. One got punished while the other didn't because of these crucial but circumstantial details. The penalties are applied correct according to those rules. However, morally speaking you can perfectly argue the 2 situations are so similar it is not fair to have in one situation a penalty applied and not in the other. If turn 10 in Monaco exited into a straight and Hamilton did same pinching manoeuvre after rentering the track, that certainly would have been classified as a unsafe reëntry of the track, because the closing speed would have been much higher.

I do hate Vettel is now claiming "F1 is not the sport anymore I fell in love with". Clearly controversial ruling has happened as well when he was just a few years in F1. The last few years he has just been on the receiving end of it, while in other years others were. Spa 2008 immediately comes to mind. Him complaining about how the sport changed for the worst now that he receives this, again as can be classified controversial, penalty, is hypocritical. He had more than enough time to lament where the sport is going, but he didn't. Infact, should the reverse have happened, Hamilton in front going off track and Vettel being squeezed, he would have done the same as Hamilton, go on the radio to complain Hamilton returned unsafely to the track. Ferrari would have lotched protest, and they would have claimed that penalty was fair.

For the record, unsafe return to the track has nothing to do with gaining an advantage. Vettel was not punished for that.

Very good post.

[izzy]

Towards 31. second he got full control again. At that time, Hamilton was unintentionally squeezed and needed to brake because there already was not enough space for him. The point which made the stewards to decide how they eventually did, was that after the mentioned point Vettel kept on positioning his car towards the right side instead of left. This was definitely the reason for the decision, else it doesn't make sense.

Seb had control by the end of 29s, he'd corrected, he steered left for a moment then he straightened it up to keep pointing at the wall. that's what the the stewards saw and said. This is Seb Vettel we're talking about, he knew what he was going to do the first millisecond he lost the back end, and Lewis knew too, 9 wdc's between them. Seb planned to occupy that bit of track by the wall asap and Lewis planned to make it look as naughty as possible

It was racecraft, just not quite perfect