2019 Belgian Grand Prix - Spa-Francorchamps, Aug 30 - Sep 1

[Jolle]

https://streamable.com/1pbnv

What is the sporting reg here? Car alongside, squeezed partly off track toward barrier. This is part of the reasoning behind why Seb was given a 5 s penalty in Canada. Car alongside, squeezed partly off-track toward barrier.

I don't mean to comment on stewards here. They wont always be consistent. But for the discussion & arguments: Kimi did squeeze a car alongside toward the barrier a la Seb-Hamilton.

At a certain point the squeezed driver sometimes cannot get out--can't go left or right for collision, can't go forward or back for collision (tires interference), and the onus is upon the squeezing driver to provide space to avoid collisions. For their own benefit as well as their opponent's.

yes Vettel was giving a penalty for that, but the circumstances were quite different. Vettel left the track and was slow. This was a first corner incident with both cars on normal speed, etc etc.

racing incident. Verstappen went for a wide gap a bit late and Raikkonen was naive to think that with a full grid he could take the apex from the outside starting position (nobody else did).

[RZS10]

Apart from some of the rules seemingly going out the window on the first lap anyways - iirc the penalty for Vettel hinged on their conviction that he knew Lewis was about to overtake to his right and opened up the steering to go wide ...

And as Jolle already wrote - this was a completely different, not comparable situation.

[roon]

Sporting regs seem generally vague and circumstantial to me.
When a car is alongside (alongside only, not talking about defending moves with one car in front of another), when is it permissible to introduce trajectories intersecting with the alongside-car trajectory? If so, when and where should those vectors intersect on the track?

If the definition is abstracted it loses some perhaps important context but may aid in ruling consistency. For example:

Seb as control introduced vector intersection, hence penalty
Kimi as control introduced vector intersection, hence penalty

*Control being the driver who has greater freedom of lateral motion in a cars-alongside situation.

As such, Ver may have been given a penalty in Austria when, as control, Ver and LeClerc made contact.

[RZS10]

I don't think one can simplify it that much, it's impossible to remove the context because it's usually the crucial part of the decision-making. Just look at my post where i isolated the drivers from the context and the situation changes massively (it can however help to show what might have caused the drivers to make their decisions). It's an interesting topic though, maybe one that could do with it's own thread, away from this one.

[PhilS13]

Anyone here figured out the logic behind pitting LEC at the moment he did? I can't figure out what seems to me like a beginner mistake that almost cost them the win.

When leading a race really things are pretty simple. You ask yourself two things.

Am I under undercut threat ? He was maintaining a steady 4.x second gap to HAM. Nothing to be scared of. Even if he had been under threat at that stage, all you have to do is wait for the Merc crew to come out of the garage(for a fake pitstop or a real one, doesn't matter) and go in yourself first if not comfortable with the gap you have. No reason to pit first by yourself. (I checked and Merc did not perform a fake pitstop scene at that moment)

Are my tyres ok ? Laptimes were steady, no dropoff in sight so thermal deg was fine. No reason to pit first by yourself. A possibility here is they measured threadwear on VET and they predicted LEC down to canvas at that moment. Unlikely but possible.

It feels like Ferrari went for the theoric "optimal total race time" strategy based on much warmer FP data, completely ignoring the race situation. Forcing themselves out of a stable known strong pace vs Merc on softs going to an uncertain(that turned out to be near catastrophic) pace on Mediums.

So what's up with that ? What is missing ?

[dans79]

So what's up with that ? What is missing ?

Ferrari was trying to stretch him to make a one stop work. Even with keeping him out as long as they did, his tires were still dead the last 2 or 3 laps.

If it hadn't been for the fact that Lewis lost several seconds (2.3) getting passed Seb, he would have been caught and passed. If they had brought him in earlier, it would have been even more likely that he would have been caught and passed, because his tires would be worse.

[PhilS13]

Ferrari was trying to stretch him to make a one stop work. Even with keeping him out as long as they did, his tires were still dead the last 2 or 3 laps.

If it hadn't been for the fact that Lewis lost several seconds (2.3) getting passed Seb, he would have been caught and passed. If they had brought him in earlier, it would have been even more likely that he would have been caught and passed, because his tires would be worse.

Yes but I am asking the complete opposite. Why not stretch him even more, there was no apparent reason not to, his
softs were fine.

[Mach]

Congratulations Leclerc

[pb6797]

Ferrari was trying to stretch him to make a one stop work. Even with keeping him out as long as they did, his tires were still dead the last 2 or 3 laps.

If it hadn't been for the fact that Lewis lost several seconds (2.3) getting passed Seb, he would have been caught and passed. If they had brought him in earlier, it would have been even more likely that he would have been caught and passed, because his tires would be worse.

Yes but I am asking the complete opposite. Why not stretch him even more, there was no apparent reason not to, his
softs were fine.

I wondered this too but also couldn't figure out what was up with Ferrari's tyre degradation.

The Softs managed 21 laps with no noticeable drop-off and yet the Mediums, a more durable tyre with a lighter car, couldn't make it 23 laps to the end without falling off a cliff. I think someone mentioned that Ferrari had accepted the tyres sliding (and wearing) more as the quid pro quo for less downforce and more straightline speed. But I don't understand why they burned the Mediums so badly.

[sosic2121]

To me it's incredible how slow Ferrari was on these Mercedes-gauge tires. It's a shame Pirelli went down that route, otherwise we could have had a championship battle instead of this...

IMO 2016 was a good year for pirelli, and now we have this one stop crap with all this fastest ever bullshit.

Sorry for the rant

[dans79]

Yes but I am asking the complete opposite. Why not stretch him even more, there was no apparent reason not to, his
softs were fine.

My assumption would be they were worried about a potential undercut. Lewis had a really bad stop, 3.6 seconds if memory serves. If he had had a normal Merc stop (2.2-2.4) and the undercut, he would have probably been within 1 to 1.5 seconds of Charles, as they both closed in rapidly on Vettel.

Ferrari would want to avoid this type of situation at all costs.

[falonso81]

I don't know if this has been asked before but aren't Merc faking pit stops rather too often? I seem to recall they are doing it every other race, sometimes more than once during a race. There is a regulation that states that you can only get your crew out only if you are intending to stop. So my question is, how is Merc getting away with all these fake pit stops?

[dans79]

There is a regulation that states that you can only get your crew out only if you are intending to stop.

The intent part is the grey area that leaves teams off the hook. All they have to say is we thought are competition was going to stop, and we intended to stop if they did.

[NL_Fer]

Ferrari was trying to stretch him to make a one stop work. Even with keeping him out as long as they did, his tires were still dead the last 2 or 3 laps.

If it hadn't been for the fact that Lewis lost several seconds (2.3) getting passed Seb, he would have been caught and passed. If they had brought him in earlier, it would have been even more likely that he would have been caught and passed, because his tires would be worse.

Yes but I am asking the complete opposite. Why not stretch him even more, there was no apparent reason not to, his
softs were fine.

Softs were not fine. The times looked ok, because the fuel becoming lighter compensated for tyre degradation. Both Leclerc and Hamilton were allot faster after the stop.

With such long laps, Hamilton could have jumped him with a undercut. They had to react, and who would have thought the mediums would burn up that day in 20 laps.

[TAG]

With such long laps, Hamilton could have jumped him with a undercut. They had to react, and who would have thought the mediums would burn up that day in 20 laps.

Anyone who saw that the car was fast but a handful to control and was eating up rears in the process. It was evident from the Friday long runs.