2019 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, July 12-14

[NathanOlder]

So just to clear this up Pyrone89, you see it differently to this...

Max wanted to use the full width of the track, but Charles was there alongside.

and that goes for both incidents, Austria and Silverstone.

Just end it now by answering that you see it that way, or see it differently.

This is going to be my final post on this, and I have explained why.
1. I think Max wanted to use the whole track in Austria, had the racing line at the moment they came together, Charles did not yield because there is no gravel and turned in anyway. Max always stayed on the track during the manouvre.
2. I think Charles wanted to use the whole track in Silverstone, did not yet have the racing line at the moment they came together, Max turned in anyway and did not yield as there is no gravel. Charles then also left the track himself.

There you go, "I think Charles wanted to use the full track" but he couldn't, as he had a RedBull to his right. So Charles has some choices, turn tighter to the right, Cant, track limits, open the lock and run out left, Cant, RedBull in the way.

Max choices, Turn tighter left, Cant Ferrari in the way,. Open the lock and move left, Can, plenty of room.

Whether Charles would have run him off the track 20m later is irrelevant. The fact is, Max turned in on Chalres (intentionally or not) and caused the 2 cars to bump.

Also yoi say "Max turned in anyway and did not yield as there is no gravel" Is yoi saying Max drove in to Charles knowing if it goes wrong, it will probably be ok as there is no gravel.

Both incidents were Max bumping into Chalres. whether they were worthy of a penalty is something completely different and not whats being debated here.

[Pyrone89]

So just to clear this up Pyrone89, you see it differently to this...

Max wanted to use the full width of the track, but Charles was there alongside.

and that goes for both incidents, Austria and Silverstone.

Just end it now by answering that you see it that way, or see it differently.

This is going to be my final post on this, and I have explained why.
1. I think Max wanted to use the whole track in Austria, had the racing line at the moment they came together, Charles did not yield because there is no gravel and turned in anyway. Max always stayed on the track during the manouvre.
2. I think Charles wanted to use the whole track in Silverstone, did not yet have the racing line at the moment they came together, Max turned in anyway and did not yield as there is no gravel. Charles then also left the track himself.

There you go, "I think Charles wanted to use the full track" but he couldn't, as he had a RedBull to his right. So Charles has some choices, turn tighter to the right, Cant, track limits, open the lock and run out left, Cant, RedBull in the way.

Max choices, Turn tighter left, Cant Ferrari in the way,. Open the lock and move left, Can, plenty of room.

Whether Charles would have run him off the track 20m later is irrelevant. The fact is, Max turned in on Chalres (intentionally or not) and caused the 2 cars to bump.

Also yoi say "Max turned in anyway and did not yield as there is no gravel" Is yoi saying Max drove in to Charles knowing if it goes wrong, it will probably be ok as there is no gravel.

Both incidents were Max bumping into Chalres. whether they were worthy of a penalty is something completely different and not whats being debated here.

As said before, I disagree with those statements and apparently so did the stewards.

[langedweil]

Anyone tea ?

[dans79]

Anyone tea ?

How about Rum and Coke?

[langedweil]

Just had nuff beer for tonite, skipped the rum for once ..

[NathanOlder]

This is going to be my final post on this, and I have explained why.
1. I think Max wanted to use the whole track in Austria, had the racing line at the moment they came together, Charles did not yield because there is no gravel and turned in anyway. Max always stayed on the track during the manouvre.
2. I think Charles wanted to use the whole track in Silverstone, did not yet have the racing line at the moment they came together, Max turned in anyway and did not yield as there is no gravel. Charles then also left the track himself.

There you go, "I think Charles wanted to use the full track" but he couldn't, as he had a RedBull to his right. So Charles has some choices, turn tighter to the right, Cant, track limits, open the lock and run out left, Cant, RedBull in the way.

Max choices, Turn tighter left, Cant Ferrari in the way,. Open the lock and move left, Can, plenty of room.

Whether Charles would have run him off the track 20m later is irrelevant. The fact is, Max turned in on Chalres (intentionally or not) and caused the 2 cars to bump.

Also yoi say "Max turned in anyway and did not yield as there is no gravel" Is yoi saying Max drove in to Charles knowing if it goes wrong, it will probably be ok as there is no gravel.

Both incidents were Max bumping into Chalres. whether they were worthy of a penalty is something completely different and not whats being debated here.

As said before, I disagree with those statements and apparently so did the stewards.

Again, no no no. The stewards didn't hand out a penalty for either, which is fine. It doesn't mean Max didnt cause the contact, it just means it didnt justify a penalty. You are seeing it wrong again.

[Sierra117]

I agree. However, while the new tachometers might look bland, the choice is between that or nothing at all. The usual "old style" telemetry is available for a very limited amount of cars and always for only one car at a time. New style telemetry is available for every car, every session, all the time.

Personally i think it's good enough, and combined with F1TV now actually working to an acceptable level, we now have an unprecedented access to onboard footage and speed/throttle readings. Not all work done by liberty has been bad.

Ah yes of course, overall it is much better and I do like how much Liberty has worked on bringing F1 "online", so to speak. It's just the small changes that nobody asked for that bug me (like nobody asking for excessive visual changes or fake sounds being played and all that).

I cannot stand the bloomin noises when the lights come on at the start of the race! And surely its missing an extra different tone when the lights go out??

Its currently

beep, beep, beep, beep, beep

and then they go out.

surely

beep, beep, beep, beep, beep
..... BING!!!

I KNOW right, like it's the most American thing ever to have the beep beep beep BING sound at the end but they totally missed it ... my OCD and music ear, everything goes haywire waiting for the bing that will never come

[izzy]

You just keep ignoring how they had different corner exits and that the line they take out of a corner is dictated by the positioning, orientation and speed. Your interpretation of seperate screenshots with a poor camera angle (that makes the track look narrower that it is), doesn't match what you can see in other pictures
Let's compare your screengrabs with this:
https://i.imgur.com/C829r7B.png
1st picture you claim Vettel was preparing to go to the right - Max has just come off the curb (the position is roughly between I and II in my pic)
2nd picture you claim Max was mirroring Vettel in reality the car went there because of the different line he took, you know .. physics (that's at II roughly) Vettel still has enough room and the angle to go to the outside
3rd picture - yea can't disagree there, note however that there's no sudden change in direction on Max' part
4th picture - of course Max hasn't gone completely to the left because he'd completely ruin his approach towards the corner, he doesn't have to cover that space further because it closes up by itself ...and if you look at my picture, at no point was there less than a car's width to his left, Vettel potentially could have even gone for the inside line but would have run out of space and in the end he did actually drive stupidly into the back of Max thanks to a loss of downforce.

Well Max had control of his car and his position, and he knew Seb was going a lot faster and was going to try a pass one side or the other. So first he defended the right side, that's the only reason he'd ever have left the space on the left. Then when Seb attacked down the left he defended that too, but it was too late with the speed Seb was carrying. There was a space and he closed it off

Anyway we agree on quite a lot of it. How did you do that graphic? It's pretty cool, tho I'd have said that up towards Vale they were closer to the left edge of the track

[Andres125sx]

People are climbing all over Verstappen for doing something that LeClerc did in a far bigger way. If Verstappen was out of order on Vettel then what was LeClerc on Verstappen?

Lecrerc always left one car width, Max didn't. That's the reason they crashed while Lecrerc didn't. Even if biggest mistake was that from Vettel, Max could have prevented the accident, but he has always preferred crashing to being passed as we saw in Baku, even with his teammate!!, so this is the result, Seb penalised, but his own race was also ruined

IMHO, this is the difference between smart drivers and the rest

[izzy]

I think you are interpreting this incorrectly, this is how I interpret the issue.

Since Max went off track, he has to turn right to get on the track, and ideally he would go all they way to the right side of the track so he can take the ideal line into the next turn.

Since Max went off track he did not get the power down fast enough, thus Seb started gaining on him at a substantial rate.

Seeing Seb was catching him and was going to try and dive up the inside, Max turns left to make sure their isn't a cars with of gap. This is allowed, and is his "move".

The tricky part is Max can also technically also go back towards the racing line (right) under this rule.

More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.

Max used to go back towards the racing line under breaking and that was why so many drivers used to complain about it, and why a rule temporarily existed to prevent it.

The rule has since been dissolved, and the only thing max could have fallen foul of is the following.

However, manoeuvers liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Pushing or other contact resulting in a lasting advantage is strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards.

So really what it all comes down to is if people consider his move back to the right an "abnormal change of direction".

Well it's a weird rule isn't it, as obviously the whole idea is to "hinder" all the other drivers on the track! But it was dangerous. I think it was two moves to defend but even without that it was simply dangerous driving, putting a wheel in a the way of a much faster car. This is the situation Max created:

and just like Baku the stewards didn't recognise it, same as they didn't recognise it when Kmag interlocked wheels with Gasly next to the wall. It's like the more dangerous something is, the more they run away from it (like the unsafe release in the pitlane) but if it's nice and safe but omg an infringement they're all over it with their 5s or EVEN 10s

[Andres125sx]

Anyone tea ?

How about Rum and Coke?

I do prefer with lemon please

[Sieper]

I'd like some tea! But first the morning coffee

[Restomaniac]

People are climbing all over Verstappen for doing something that LeClerc did in a far bigger way. If Verstappen was out of order on Vettel then what was LeClerc on Verstappen?

Lecrerc always left one car width, Max didn't. That's the reason they crashed while Lecrerc didn't. Even if biggest mistake was that from Vettel, Max could have prevented the accident, but he has always preferred crashing to being passed as we saw in Baku, even with his teammate!!, so this is the result, Seb penalised, but his own race was also ruined

IMHO, this is the difference between smart drivers and the rest

A late move, is a late move, is a late move.
Verstappen isn’t my favourite driver and I think I’ve made that clear but I’m not gunna lay into him whilst LeClerc gets away Scott free. Bearing in mind that the Verstappen move (If it happened at all
Which is 50/50 IMHO) was tiny compared to the blatant move by LeClerc.

[turbof1]

Just my 2 cents here regarding the Verstappen-Vettel incident: let me first be clear that given Vettel did a mea culpa, which did show good sportmanship from him doing so, I feel obviously it is completely Vettel's fault htat the incident happened.

That being said, I do loathe the practice of moving so much, regardless of the rules. The issue is not really that this will block the opponent, but more that making many small moves will leave the driver behind confused. We saw it with the Mark Webber incident in the video above, with the Lotus trying to get out of the way but constantly moving in the same direction as Webber. Webber did not know which sides to take anymore and crashed into the Lotus (of course the high closing speeds have a big part to play there as well). Now, in the Vettel-Verstappen case I don't really believe Vettel was getting confused by the micro movements from Verstappen, he just tried to go into a none-existing gap, but Verstappen does make many of these little movements. Again, it's not about blocking that makes this dangerous, but more that those speeds many small movement will definitely leave your opponent confused and that creates danger.

[garygph]

Anyone tea ?

How about Rum and Coke?

Make mine a double!