2019 French Grand Prix - Le Castellet, June 21-23

[Just_a_fan]

Clean race today by the Mercedes drivers, devoid of divebombing sliding cars.

You're trolling now, be careful or the billy goat will get you...

[Brake Horse Power]

Booring penalties as usual.

[Just_a_fan]

As a point, Vettel set his fastest lap while putting all 4 over the white line at least once....

That was the case in qualifying for most if not all of the drivers, especially on the outside of T6, but as always FIA deemed that in that case there is no time gained so they allowed it. As if drivers would go there lap after lap after lap if that wasn't the faster way to go through that corner

There was a point made by one commentator that you can go wide on a "not quicker off" corner having gone quicker in the preceding "quicker off" corner. You gain more overall because the controlled corner makes more difference. It's further clever playing of the rules.

[astracrazy]

Booring penalties as usual.

I feel like the sport needs to look at other sports and rewrite to move forward.

The rules and penalty system has just been added too and modified so much its either too confusing or rules are conflicting. They need to strip it back and go again. You break a rule and there are 5 different penalties that can be applied.

Today we had a driver follow one rule by going around a bollard but still managed to break another by doing it. Another got two penalties but didnt get penalised earlier for doing the same thing because “they werent in the same race”.

It needs to be cut and dry.

[cooken]

Is going around the bollard supposed to be a penalty in and if itself, or is it there to ensure cars filter back on to the track in a safer spot? Also, did going around actually cause him to gain the advantage? No, cutting the corner is what have the advantage, he just broke one rule instead of two.

Thinking logically, Perez screwed up and went off the race track. There's no way he should be able to benefit from that. In this situation common sense agrees with the ruling.

Note the rules about overtaking off track / gaining an advantage don't say anything about bollards or the route taken

[subcritical71]

Booring penalties as usual.

I feel like the sport needs to look at other sports and rewrite to move forward.

The rules and penalty system has just been added too and modified so much its either too confusing or rules are conflicting. They need to strip it back and go again. You break a rule and there are 5 different penalties that can be applied.

Today we had a driver follow one rule by going around a bollard but still managed to break another by doing it. Another got two penalties but didnt get penalised earlier for doing the same thing because “they werent in the same race”.

It needs to be cut and dry.

Rules need to be cut and dry, like you say, there should be no room for intention, feelings or bias. I feel too many people want outcome based penalties and I feel this is were you start introducing the grey areas. Penalize per the rule book and adjust the rule book if the penalty is now deemed unfair or it has outlived its usefulness.

[Just_a_fan]

Outcome based penalties could be done:
1. Rejoin requiring evasive action = 5s
2. Rejoin resulting in contact = 10s
3. Rejoin resulting in damage = drive through.
4. Rejoin gaining an advantage = give back advantage. Failure to give back = drive through.

Etc.

[notsofast]

I feel like the sport needs to look at other sports and rewrite to move forward.

Tennis.

Out is out.

[roon]

Outcome based penalties could be done:
1. Rejoin requiring evasive action = 5s
2. Rejoin resulting in contact = 10s
3. Rejoin resulting in damage = drive through.
4. Rejoin gaining an advantage = give back advantage. Failure to give back = drive through.

Etc.

Let's be fair:

Rejoin safely at a dangerous part of the track = 2s penalty til track is fixed
Rejoin dangerously but no cameras around = self report via FIA supplied in-cockpit wireless gavel
Failure to give self report = drive a little slower for a bit
Give up position but still angry about it whilst doing so = 5 deep breaths
Failure to give up a position after internet consensus = must meet with stewards in Toto's office
Failure to revere Hamilton = 44s penalty plus awkward handshake
Failure to expect anything from Vettel = demotion or promotion to P2
Failure to pass a Williams = must now drive for Williams
Failure to apoligize to Grosjean = must report income in France
Failure to make Kimi smile = 2w Finnish sensitivity training
Failure to make 107% rule = must commentate race with Brundle

[drunkf1fan]

What happened to Bottas on the last laps? Not only he was nowhere in the race but he also nearly got passed by Leclerc?

Couldn’t get his tires to work after the VSC

Oh ok, thanks for the clarification.

this isn't correct at all. His lap times dropped massively before the VSC. The gap was at it's biggest around 8.4 seconds on lap 44. Lap 50 was the VSC, the gap reduced between those laps, it was 5.4 seconds on lap 47, 3.5 seconds on lap 49.

THe gap came down as fast before the VSC as after it. As is almost completely standard Bottas has poor tire wear, he drops off compared to Hamilton so much at the end of stints. In the past two seasons there are a whole load of races where he loses 10 seconds mostly in the final 1/4 of the first stint, then he'll lost another 10-15 in the second stint again mostly right at the end and in many cases tires get so bad and he loses track position such that he pits for another set of tires with less than 5 laps to go because they have gotten that bad. USA that happened one year, maybe both, happened in Brazil last year.

Basically the places he's actually somewhat competitive with Hamilton are very low deg tracks and even then it's more tracks in which suit him like France is low deg, one stop and even with blistering the tires were fine to go fast at the end except if Bottas gets a blister he can't manage his tires. He does great in places like Russia, etc, and if he manages to get ahead at a non passing track like Australia then he can manage pace and hold his tires better.

bottas is only capable of being truly competitive with Hamilton at some tracks. Qualifying he's far stronger than race pace, but still not strong enough.

If Ferrari or RBR ever had a truly competitive car these races and his dire tire wear would cost Merc so many points.

[drunkf1fan]

Is going around the bollard supposed to be a penalty in and if itself, or is it there to ensure cars filter back on to the track in a safer spot? Also, did going around actually cause him to gain the advantage? No, cutting the corner is what have the advantage, he just broke one rule instead of two.

Thinking logically, Perez screwed up and went off the race track. There's no way he should be able to benefit from that. In this situation common sense agrees with the ruling.

Note the rules about overtaking off track / gaining an advantage don't say anything about bollards or the route taken

Yup, people are getting super weird about the bollards. The rule is you can't gain an advantage by cutting, it was clear he did. The bollard rules are about making it safer to rejoin and also making it take longer in the case of it happening when no other drivers are around. Here we had the start of the race, he passed two cars, the advantage was obvious, if this was middle of the race and the nearest cars were 5 seconds ahead and behind it would be far harder to gage what level of advantage he gained. If you could blast straight back onto the track you could gain several seconds without gaining a place, the bollard is also meant to make it take longer to rejoin as well as coming on in a safer position, but it never was intended to, never has done and was never believed to have replaced normal rules.

It was always an addition and you could additionally gain a penalty for failing to follow those instructions.

Perez also wouldn't have had a penalty if he simply gave the places back. I actually feel for him in that sense because he was behind a Haas a couple seconds before that corner and he came out behind a Haas, it was just a different Haas. If the FIA showed better replays and or just told the team to drop him back behind Albon then they could have avoided that unnecessary penalty but really there wasn't a good view nor any instruction that he can just give back the positions. His team should have been able to do it themselves though.

[Jackles-UK]

The cars have a maximum width of approx 2m I believe - how difficult would it be to install a narrow (one car’s width, perhaps?) strip of gravel/grass/bumps 2m beyond the edge of the track at points of corner exit where drivers are currently tempted to run a wide to gain time? Surely this is the easiest and safest answer to that problem as the gigantic tarmac run-off area is still in place beyond that deterrent should a high-speed accident occur. Street tracks already have Armco/Tec-Pro barriers for this effect so I can’t see how a safety issue can arise.

Maybe this way the drivers will stop pushing their luck with track limits and drive within the boundaries of the rules. Run wide and drop a wheel onto that = the car is significantly affected. “Force” a car wide onto that (still some scope for arguments, I know) = a penalty is applied.

Simple.

[dans79]

The problem with just adding grass everywhere is that you've now created a safety issue at some tracks in some corners. instead of just going slightly off track, they'll hit the grass, lose control and end up in a barrier.

[subcritical71]

Outcome based penalties could be done:
1. Rejoin requiring evasive action = 5s
2. Rejoin resulting in contact = 10s
3. Rejoin resulting in damage = drive through.
4. Rejoin gaining an advantage = give back advantage. Failure to give back = drive through.

Etc.

True, but what I meant by outcome based is more race outcome stuff like, “there was no one else around so why does it matter”, “the ruling affected the race outcome”, “the collision didn’t cause him to retire”. Your example is what I would say is black and white.

[carisi2k]

Daniels penalty was silly. He barely left the circuit if at all and never cut the corner. The re enter rule should not have applied in his instance since he did not gain an advantage by cutting the corner.