2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

[Zarathustra]

Isn’t this ‘issue’ already ‘done & dusted’..?

Let’s move along- nothing to see here.

[NathanOlder]

Kimi purposely let others pass in the hopes that he wouldn't get penalised for the jump start as he didn't gain any position. It's similar to how you let the other car pass if you run off the track and overtake someone. Vettel was on pole position, he couldn't do that and let 20 cars pass him as that would be dangerous.

- It should not matter
- It makes sense in cutting corners/overtakes but not with starts. One is wheel to wheel racing with all the risks and circumstances the other clear cut, 01, measurable transgression.
- it is still dangerous (another reason) doesn't matter if it's Raikkonen's or Vettel's case. Third reason: risk/reward and no punishment if it goes wrong at the most important stage of the race. Yeah try to jump start, if you're within a limit you gain if you are not just give back position - it's not good enough .
- didn't follow Vettel's case, I have no stomach for FIA BS, I know they brought out some measurements
- (correct me if I'm wrong) remember when Maldonado started in a wrong box (one behind) and got a penalty? So much for not gaining an advantage as an excuse.

They team has all the telemetry of when he dropped the cluth or such so its nonsense to talk about margin.
Kimi messed up his start and got the penalty even though so this driver should also have had it.
But it seems it is the veto team so they need them.Same as vettel deserved a few black flags and race bans before

Yup totally agree. Vettel been getting away with a fair bit over the years. Now wearing Red he's unbeatable

[komninosm]

Vettel wasnt punished as he car was not far enough forward to trigger the sensor and his wheels did not cross over the white grid box line. This line is the point at where the sensor kicks in. Bottas also did the same, but oddly, many people are not calling for action against him. A little bit of bias, methinks?

Do you have any proof of that?

[komninosm]

[lSecond time they've disregarded video proof this season to fudge a penalty. (Vettel again, in Monza)

That's not correct, there was no concrete evidence.
What about Bottas' start in Austria 2017?

Assuming you're talking about Monza, there was a picture of his car completely off the edge of the white line which marked the limit of the circuit. It was posted on this forum somewhere. The stewards then fudged some explanation about how maybe from another hypothetical angle the edge of the tyre MIGHT still be overhanging where the edge of the white line was, so therefore they didn't see fit to penalise him. That, just like this, was a ridiculous decision which defied visual evidence.

You can't possibly be talking about no evidence for the jump start- just watch the beginning of the race again...

LOL so many cheats this year by FIARRARI I had forgotten that Vettel FIA con even happened...
Man how can they even tell these lies with a straight face and the fans buy into it and promulgate that nonsense.

[michl420]

I read many hear About the start but not all. My opionion is the stewarts can`t give a Penalty because they rule say only the sensor can say it is a false start. So the fault is in the Regulation. But the Regulation was made this way to prevent the stewarts to make wrong decisions (like the checkered flag rule, more or less the same Story). It´s all About human vs. Technology. By the way the start box has Nothing to do with a false start. A false start can be theoretically done 1 meter before or 1 meter behind the box. It only guide the driver to the start sensor. It counts when you move, not where.

[komninosm]

What I don't understand is why Leclerc gets two penalty point for clumsiness(driving into Verstappen), but no penalty points for deliberate dangerous behaviour(driving with a damaged car, ignoring instructions to pit)

FIARRARI rules again.

Just in this race they avoided 3 obvious penalties.
Vettel jump start.
Leclerc hits Max.
Leclerc endangers others with his damaged car debris.

And the fans still spam "Hamilton's fault" everywhere on the internet

[Scorpaguy]

What I don't understand is why Leclerc gets two penalty point for clumsiness(driving into Verstappen), but no penalty points for deliberate dangerous behaviour(driving with a damaged car, ignoring instructions to pit)

FIARRARI rules again.

Just in this race they avoided 3 obvious penalties.
Vettel jump start.
Leclerc hits Max.
Leclerc endangers others with his damaged car debris.

And the fans still spam "Hamilton's fault" everywhere on the internet

Ferrari received 4 penalties in Suzuka:

1. Lec - 5-sec post race for Max incident
2. Lec - 2 penalty points on license for Max incident
3. Lec - 10-sec post race for unsafe car (from Max incident)
4. Fer - 25K euro fine for unsafe car

[drunkf1fan]

What I don't understand is why Leclerc gets two penalty point for clumsiness(driving into Verstappen), but no penalty points for deliberate dangerous behaviour(driving with a damaged car, ignoring instructions to pit)

FIARRARI rules again.

Just in this race they avoided 3 obvious penalties.
Vettel jump start.
Leclerc hits Max.
Leclerc endangers others with his damaged car debris.

And the fans still spam "Hamilton's fault" everywhere on the internet

Ferrari received 4 penalties in Suzuka:

1. Lec - 5-sec post race for Max incident
2. Lec - 2 penalty points on license for Max incident
3. Lec - 10-sec post race for unsafe car (from Max incident)
4. Fer - 25K euro fine for unsafe car

Yes, but notice how despite being blatantly obvious penalties that could have been applied during the race which would give other drivers the chance to finish ahead on the day... they applied the penalties once the title was already officially gone. In other words, once again they didn't want to cost Ferrari the title directly but when something else happens to offset such a penalty they are fine with giving a penalty. In this case they officially lost the title to Merc, penalties became effectively meaningless.

Last year Vettel hit Hamilton twice under a safety car, once by going too early then deliberately hitting Hamilton. That penalty could have been given in 20 seconds, instead it was given like 40 minutes later after like a 30 minute cleaning the track red flag. When did they give it, right after they decided to give Hamilton the message that he had to pit to replace the headrest. At which point they felt more comfortable giving Vettel a stop/go penalty. Before then they somehow took an absurdly long time even with absolutely nothing to do under the red flag and couldn't give it but the second it could be offset, bam.

Same goes back in 2008, Ham locks up, never been penalised at the start for locking up and hitting no one and only costing yourself time but they investigated it. Massa goes all four wheels off track, cuts a corner and tags Hamilton deliberately (the only way he could do it was cutting the corner, there was no reason to cut the corner other than because you decided you were going to try to hit Hamilton)... again FIA were going to be in a position they had to give Ferrari a harsh penalty but whoa, they have Hamilton 'under investigation'.... for locking up, and they immediately gave them both the same penalty for laughably different incidents, one close to a black flag and one that never ever gets penalised.

Spa... Charlie tells HAmilton twice that the pass he made is fine, there is zero rule saying what he did was wrong. FIA penalise Hamilton, bumps Massa to a win and then write a new rule that enables that punishment for the next race onwards but they penalised Hamilton for it before it was a rule.

It's easy to give a penalty when you can **** the other team as well, giving Ferrari a harsh and deserved penalty where it would for instance, directly take a title away from them or directly drop a Ferrari driver a bunch of points down on a rival in a title fight, haven't seen that happen in as long as I've watched F1.

[Scorpaguy]

FIARRARI rules again.

Just in this race they avoided 3 obvious penalties.
Vettel jump start.
Leclerc hits Max.
Leclerc endangers others with his damaged car debris.

And the fans still spam "Hamilton's fault" everywhere on the internet

Ferrari received 4 penalties in Suzuka:

1. Lec - 5-sec post race for Max incident
2. Lec - 2 penalty points on license for Max incident
3. Lec - 10-sec post race for unsafe car (from Max incident)
4. Fer - 25K euro fine for unsafe car

Yes, but notice how despite being blatantly obvious penalties that could have been applied during the race which would give other drivers the chance to finish ahead on the day... they applied the penalties once the title was already officially gone. In other words, once again they didn't want to cost Ferrari the title directly but when something else happens to offset such a penalty they are fine with giving a penalty. In this case they officially lost the title to Merc, penalties became effectively meaningless.

Last year Vettel hit Hamilton twice under a safety car, once by going too early then deliberately hitting Hamilton. That penalty could have been given in 20 seconds, instead it was given like 40 minutes later after like a 30 minute cleaning the track red flag. When did they give it, right after they decided to give Hamilton the message that he had to pit to replace the headrest. At which point they felt more comfortable giving Vettel a stop/go penalty. Before then they somehow took an absurdly long time even with absolutely nothing to do under the red flag and couldn't give it but the second it could be offset, bam.

Same goes back in 2008, Ham locks up, never been penalised at the start for locking up and hitting no one and only costing yourself time but they investigated it. Massa goes all four wheels off track, cuts a corner and tags Hamilton deliberately (the only way he could do it was cutting the corner, there was no reason to cut the corner other than because you decided you were going to try to hit Hamilton)... again FIA were going to be in a position they had to give Ferrari a harsh penalty but whoa, they have Hamilton 'under investigation'.... for locking up, and they immediately gave them both the same penalty for laughably different incidents, one close to a black flag and one that never ever gets penalised.

Spa... Charlie tells HAmilton twice that the pass he made is fine, there is zero rule saying what he did was wrong. FIA penalise Hamilton, bumps Massa to a win and then write a new rule that enables that punishment for the next race onwards but they penalised Hamilton for it before it was a rule.

It's easy to give a penalty when you can **** the other team as well, giving Ferrari a harsh and deserved penalty where it would for instance, directly take a title away from them or directly drop a Ferrari driver a bunch of points down on a rival in a title fight, haven't seen that happen in as long as I've watched F1.

Please note I was not picking a fight/choosing sides/defending eventualities...just stating facts. However, IMHO, all lucid FIA officials have known that both title fights were effectively over long before Suzuka.

[izzy]

5s for Charles was pathetic, he'd so obviously just decided Max wasn't going round the outside and even takes a bit of steering lock off to make sure! And to start with they weren't even going to investigate.

[sosic2121]

[lSecond time they've disregarded video proof this season to fudge a penalty. (Vettel again, in Monza)

That's not correct, there was no concrete evidence.
What about Bottas' start in Austria 2017?

Assuming you're talking about Monza, there was a picture of his car completely off the edge of the white line which marked the limit of the circuit. It was posted on this forum somewhere. The stewards then fudged some explanation about how maybe from another hypothetical angle the edge of the tyre MIGHT still be overhanging where the edge of the white line was, so therefore they didn't see fit to penalise him. That, just like this, was a ridiculous decision which defied visual evidence.

You can't possibly be talking about no evidence for the jump start- just watch the beginning of the race again...

There was no picture showing that Vettel is out because tire was partially in the air. There was no bird view angle.

Bottas didn't get the penalty in Austria for jump start, although moved before lights and gained massive advantage. So I don't understand what's the deal here!?

What about Leclerc's penalties?
First, they are given in a way that he and Ferrari can't do anything about it. imo that was unfair.

On the other hand, about Lec-Ves.
Is it too late to give Verstapen a penalty for similar incident in Austria?!

[cooken]

5s for Charles was pathetic, he'd so obviously just decided Max wasn't going round the outside and even takes a bit of steering lock off to make sure! And to start with they weren't even going to investigate.

Just FYI, taking off a bit of steering lock is how you correct understeer, so it is not an indication of malicious intent.

Please note I fully agree he deserved a penalty for poor driving causing a collision, but stating he actively steered into Max is a bit much.

[izzy]

Just FYI, taking off a bit of steering lock is how you correct understeer, so it is not an indication of malicious intent.

Please note I fully agree he deserved a penalty for poor driving causing a collision, but stating he actively steered into Max is a bit much.

he wasn't taking it off to grip up, i know what you mean but that's not what he was doing. he flicked it, just for an instant, to take himself wider than he was going already. It's something obviously that can be explained away as a mistake but I don't believe it I'm with Karun, that he could have avoided contact.

It's part of this culture that Max started, the stewards bottled, and now Charles has taken it to the next level. Driving aggressively is like guns - great when you're the only one!! Hopefully as they get a bit older they'll learn to win with skill, not trying to be more aggressive than the other guy. But the stewards, is who i blame, and this macho "let them race" thing that Martin Brundle & co think is so heroic when obviously racing drivers will still explore the limits wherever they are and moving the limits just makes more bumper cars not less penalties

[El Scorchio]

That's not correct, there was no concrete evidence.
What about Bottas' start in Austria 2017?

Assuming you're talking about Monza, there was a picture of his car completely off the edge of the white line which marked the limit of the circuit. It was posted on this forum somewhere. The stewards then fudged some explanation about how maybe from another hypothetical angle the edge of the tyre MIGHT still be overhanging where the edge of the white line was, so therefore they didn't see fit to penalise him. That, just like this, was a ridiculous decision which defied visual evidence.

You can't possibly be talking about no evidence for the jump start- just watch the beginning of the race again...

There was no picture showing that Vettel is out because tire was partially in the air. There was no bird view angle.

Bottas didn't get the penalty in Austria for jump start, although moved before lights and gained massive advantage. So I don't understand what's the deal here!?

What about Leclerc's penalties?
First, they are given in a way that he and Ferrari can't do anything about it. imo that was unfair.

On the other hand, about Lec-Ves.
Is it too late to give Verstapen a penalty for similar incident in Austria?!

Oh, so you believe in the ‘he MIGHT not have been fully over the line if we had a hypothetical picture that doesn’t exist rather than the one we DO have which does show him over the line.’ explanation/argument then. Oh dear.

It’s rulings like that which make the stewards a total laughing stock.

I agree the way Leclerc got his penalties was dumb as well, (why did they have to leave it until after the race?) but not forcing him into the pits with a dangerous car was by far dumber. I don’t really believe there’s a big bias toward certain teams, but the stewards do themselves no favours with consistency or error in decision making and keep leaving themselves open to rightful criticism.

[sosic2121]

Oh, so you believe in the ‘he MIGHT not have been fully over the line if we had a hypothetical picture that doesn’t exist rather than the one we DO have which does show him over the line.’ explanation/argument then. Oh dear.

It’s rulings like that which make the stewards a total laughing stock.

I agree the way Leclerc got his penalties was dumb as well, (why did they have to leave it until after the race?) but not forcing him into the pits with a dangerous car was by far dumber. I don’t really believe there’s a big bias toward certain teams, but the stewards do themselves no favours with consistency or error in decision making and keep leaving themselves open to rightful criticism.

I have not seen a picture that's showing outside of the track! On the other hand that picture is not showing that he's within track either.

Obviously, Leclerc drove "dangerous" car. I do not know what was the communication between him and race control, so if he was instructed to pit by race control and he did not, penalty well deserved.

Also while I believe he also deserved 5s penalty for T2 incident, I don't see any significant difference between this incident and the they had in Austria!