2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix - Imola, Apr 16 - 18

[Just_a_fan]

As I also said previously, in my personal view, I'm quite indifferent about this particular rule. I recognize why people find it unfair when it benefits a lead driver (be it Hamilton, Verstappen or someone else), but I also recognize that won't be the case in the majority of applications - and that there are benefits to allowing drivers to unlap in most cases. And that alternatives, such as a timed-interval release from the pit lane, has its issues too.

The unlapping rule was brought in specifically to benefit those behind the leader - or rather to benefit racing by bringing the leaders nose to tail. Before the unlapping rule, you'd have the cars in whatever order they happened to be in at the point the safety car emerged. A leader could be sat in the middle of a group of backmarkers, or the leader ahead of the group and the P2 and P3 drivers in the group of back markers. It was often the case that the leader then got away and the P2 and P3 drivers had no chance to attack him as the back markers got in the way. The rule was brought in to unlap cars so that there wasn't a risk of slow cars in the middle of the leading group. It was brought in to increase the chance that there would be fighting at the front between the lead cars after the safety car.

[basti313]

Yup, I feel it is unfair to say Bottas failed to make progress. Sure he is not as good as Hamilton in the wet but if overtaking was possible at all on a wet track it is only when the whole width is equally wet that you stand Any change. Once there is a dry line and you have To overtake on the wet part how is that going to work out, it would be a master feat. Russell got nowhere close to making it stick, it was almost impossible imho.

Yes, we did not see any overtakes in this race. Completely impossible. Especially in the DRS zone.

indeed. Not when the track was wet, you are completely correct. they all happened after the second SC restart.

We saw many overtakes round lap 10 when the situation was equally tricky with a dry line. The difference was that they did not squeeze.
I am honestly puzzled by the discussion. We are talking about a late move. We are talking about squeezing a car on the wet that was 2 sec faster in the lap before it got stuck behind you...
That was a classic Magnussen or Grosjean move.

[DChemTech]

As I also said previously, in my personal view, I'm quite indifferent about this particular rule. I recognize why people find it unfair when it benefits a lead driver (be it Hamilton, Verstappen or someone else), but I also recognize that won't be the case in the majority of applications - and that there are benefits to allowing drivers to unlap in most cases. And that alternatives, such as a timed-interval release from the pit lane, has its issues too.

The unlapping rule was brought in specifically to benefit those behind the leader - or rather to benefit racing by bringing the leaders nose to tail. Before the unlapping rule, you'd have the cars in whatever order they happened to be in at the point the safety car emerged. A leader could be sat in the middle of a group of backmarkers, or the leader ahead of the group and the P2 and P3 drivers in the group of back markers. It was often the case that the leader then got away and the P2 and P3 drivers had no chance to attack him as the back markers got in the way. The rule was brought in to unlap cars so that there wasn't a risk of slow cars in the middle of the leading group. It was brought in to increase the chance that there would be fighting at the front between the lead cars after the safety car.

Sorry, with lead driver I didn't mean race leader in this context - but championship contender. I will edit that for clarity. And yes, I understand that reasoning, just as I understand the reasoning that people find it unfair that a large gap is eliminated (by a safety car or neutralization), and that I understand that people find this more if an issue if it considers serious contenders. But yeah, the rules can never satisfy both perspective - hence a balance between the two is needed.

[Phil]

.....

Maybe this topic isn't just the right place for *that* discussion. There's a lot of things that may seem unfair, but in the end, it boils down to something rather simple: We race on circular tracks, so there is always the element of lapping. However, if the race was rather on a straight or a track from A to B and there would be a safety car or something to that effect, the whole field will be bunched up.

The safety car has always introduced this element, it's nothing new, so why cry about it now? Teams actually plan for this, by for example driving to a particular delta, as driving out a too large gap (at the expense of higher tire wear) is a disadvantage in case of a safety car. Drivers prepare for this eventuality. It's the name of the game and the game is the same for everyone. Vice versa, if the drivers had been reversed, it would be no fairer/unfairer for the same reason.

I find it quite frankly amusing and rather annoying that everytime fans of a certain driver don't get the desired outcome, they feel the need to talk about changing rules that have been part of the sport for ages. Sure, you can always change something, but you will never solve everything. And new rules introduce other elements that could be subject of being unfair in other ways.

I'm a Hamilton fan and I'm quite frankly not pleased that lapping back markers robbed us of what certainly would have been a better fight, but I'm certainly not going to moan about changing rules or what not because I did not have the desired outcome of a race. In fact, I appreciate the race for what it was - Verstappen drove superbly and completely deserved that win. If Hamilton deserved 2nd is another matter - lucky he was that there was a safety car, but likewise, also unlucky that track condition brought fate together in a way he ended up dropping out of that race for the win completely. So maybe it was Max who was lucky that Hamilton dropped out like that. Or Max was lucky that there was no wall at the safety restart point when he lost control of his car. I mean come on.

It is what it is. Just sit back and enjoy the ride of what looks like is going to be a superb season.

[El Scorchio]

I’m sure a lot of people complaining now were not so upset last season and before when numerous safety cars brought Verstappen right onto the tail of the Mercedes which had built a handsome lead, and allowed all the lapped cars to get out of the way so he could have a run at the cars ahead of him...

[DChemTech]

.....

...

It is what it is. Just sit back and enjoy the ride of what looks like is going to be a superb season.

That's a very fair response Phil, and I agree with you. This topic is not the time and place to discuss whether rules should be changed specifically. Unfortunately, such a de-escalating remark is rarely posted. Maybe if the default response to cries for rule-changes would be something along the lines of...

"well, these are the rules as they are now, this time they benefit Hamilton and next time they may benefit Max. If you think the rules could be improved, open a thread elsewhere and discuss, but this is not the time and place for that"

instead along the lines of..

"Boo-hoo you're just salty because your driver didn't benefit"

the 'outrage' wouldn't escalate as much.
(Obviously, I am not referring to any comments from your side with the latter)

[Slo Poke]

Worry not, peeps! The matter has been dealt with. I kid you not.

Tire wear is a killer next round, that looooong right hand turn is murder on the rears.

Is the next round that track that has an insanely positive camber onto the start, finish straight? If so wouldn’t that corner be murderous to all four tyres?

[214270]

What an idiot, he’s all over the place:

https://www.planetf1.com/news/george-ru ... -comments/

“Could it have been avoided? Yes.
Was Valtteri in the wrong? Probably not.
Could he have done something slightly more? Maybe.
Was I in the wrong? I caused the crash by spinning, but was I wrong to go for that overtake? Absolutely not.
You would have been foolish to lift at that position.”

[Sieper]

Yes, we did not see any overtakes in this race. Completely impossible. Especially in the DRS zone.

indeed. Not when the track was wet, you are completely correct. they all happened after the second SC restart.

We saw many overtakes round lap 10 when the situation was equally tricky with a dry line. The difference was that they did not squeeze.
I am honestly puzzled by the discussion. We are talking about a late move. We are talking about squeezing a car on the wet that was 2 sec faster in the lap before it got stuck behind you...
That was a classic Magnussen or Grosjean move.

What is the point? Bottas isn’t very good. I never was under that impression but whenever one says so, no he is great etc. Otherwise people fear for Hamilton’s rep. No need, Hamilton always let him be. We see now what the real pace difference is when Ham and Bot are not 1 and 2 on most every grid. Ham is in front and Bot is not there, especially in tricky conditions.

But my point is Bottas was kind a stuck on the dry path. Overtaking, even with that pace difference is just a big risk. Russell is a far better driver imho. But I can understand Bottas being kinda stuck, a man of his skillset would be.

I don’t think he is to blame for the collision like I think you are saying. I, as usual, agree with Jolyon Palmer.

[dans79]

Traffic played a big role in that more than tire wear. I saw the inters after they came off on both cars, they looked relatively the same. The RBR had a bit more inside shoulder wear, and Mercedes a bit better front wear, more even, the rears looked identical though.

Having just watched the timing data, and the onboards side by side, I have to say you are wrong here.

• On lap 14 Max caught and pasted Mick going into Villeneuve and wasn't hindered in any way. lewis caught him and was hindered by him from turn 11 through 13, but not enough to be meaningful in my opinion.
• On lap 17 lewis has two minor moments but nothing even close to 9 tenths worth (so recharging maybe).
• It looks like lewis used full deployment on lap 21 and thus why he was slow on lap 22.
• On lap 25 lewis lost a lot more time to vettel & Yuki than max did and still took a chunk of time.

Max's tires where dead/dying that's why Lewis was taking chunks out of him!

[MKlaus]

What an idiot, he’s all over the place:

https://www.planetf1.com/news/george-ru ... -comments/

“Could it have been avoided? Yes.
Was Valtteri in the wrong? Probably not.
Could he have done something slightly more? Maybe.
Was I in the wrong? I caused the crash by spinning, but was I wrong to go for that overtake? Absolutely not.
You would have been foolish to lift at that position.”

whats wrong in what he is saying? he forgot to add another question. why was bottas' mercedes battling a williams?

[SmallSoldier]

So, drivers are allowed to unlap themselves on every single Safety Car and we have those a lot lately, but it bothers you that Hamilton unlapped himself under a Red Flag? I mean... Why the sudden outrage?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I wouldn't call it outrage, but it's a fair question to ask "why does the issue pop up now?". And to that I posed a lengthy explanation some pages back: this time, there is much more at stake. Normally, it's not the reigning world champion/one of the main title contenders that benefits most from the procedure - this time it is, so it will naturally raise more discussion.

In my view, it's also not a matter of 'the rules are not fair!!!'. The rules will never be really fair, sometimes a driver is lucky, sometimes they are not. There are a lot of factors that can influence the outcome and odds that drivers have no control over. That's the way it is. Still, that should not be a reason to just view the rules as being some holy and unchangeable entity. It may be possible to make some rules fairer, clearer, or shift balance between rules that treat everyone equally (but, in rare cases potentially impact the championship disproportionally), vs. rules that aim at minimizing impact on championship outcome, but are less fair for backmarkers. Any ruleset, in that respect, is a balancing act. But that does also mean that that balance should be open for discussion, and naturally, such discussions tend to arise when a rule has an impact that benefits a contender.

As I also said previously, in my personal view, I'm quite indifferent about this particular rule. I recognize why people find it unfair when it benefits a championship contender driver (be it Hamilton, Verstappen or someone else), but I also recognize that won't be the case in the majority of applications - and that there are benefits to allowing drivers to unlap in most cases. And that alternatives, such as a timed-interval release from the pit lane, has its issues too.

What I do take issue with is that it seems we just cannot have such a discussion. When someone brings up "I find rule X unfair because...", the default response just seems to be "deal with it, it's the rules". Or "You're just salty because it doesn't advantage your driver" (and more bizarre accusations than that have unfortunately passed by, rather unjustly in my view). Sure, some fans may just be outraged. Others may bring it up because they find it a genuine point of issue, and would like to discuss that issue. It would be nice if the latter is taken seriously, too.

I understand your point of view and a discussion in regards to what makes a rule “good” or “fair” or “balanced” is probably meaningless, mainly because personal bias or preference will be present in the argument and therefore objectivity will be hard to find.

I do find interesting that some fans, have sudden issues with the rules when their favorite driver isn’t favored by them... I could understand that from a new fan to the sport, but for long standing fans, to suddenly find a rule wrong or unfair simply because it didn’t favored the driver / team they root for or favored in a particular situation either a rival of said driver / team (or simply a driver that they don’t like for whatever reason) it’s harder to understand.

Last race was in regards to track limits, this week is in regards to cars unlapping themselves (something that happens on every single race their is a Safety Car), last season cars unlapped themselves at Monza when we had the red flag and there wasn’t a discussion or questioning of set rule... Suddenly, Hamilton benefits from such a rule and we need to question it? That’s when unluckily the discussion is hard to have, because the questioning isn’t about the rule itself, it’s more about how it benefited a driver or hindered one you prefer, which it’s a little absurd in my opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dans79]

I heard HAM complaining on the radio that the left front was really suffering. Does that mean only that tire is really considered high degradation at that point. Is it only the fronts? How does that compare to the RB? Maybe Max had high degradation on his rear tires and just didn't have any decent drive off turns.

Not to long after that Lewis said the grip was coming back, so i think he changed how he was attacking in some minute way, and that got the tire temps back under control.

When I rewatched the onboards, it looked like Max's front's where dead, and thus he was going slower through the turns to mitigate the risk of understeering off the track. I only heard one minior spin up and that was when he was clearly on wet curbs.

[WaikeCU]

imo I thought DRS was enabled far too soon with half the track still quite greasy and wet.

[214270]

What an idiot, he’s all over the place:

https://www.planetf1.com/news/george-ru ... -comments/

“Could it have been avoided? Yes.
Was Valtteri in the wrong? Probably not.
Could he have done something slightly more? Maybe.
Was I in the wrong? I caused the crash by spinning, but was I wrong to go for that overtake? Absolutely not.
You would have been foolish to lift at that position.”

whats wrong in what he is saying? he forgot to add another question. why was bottas' mercedes battling a williams?

It’s the response of a coward. A weasel.

Saying a whole bunch of nothing, instead of saying what should be said...the hard thing, the right thing (ie) I f*cked up & I’m sorry. Job done.

BOT racing with a Williams is completely irrelevant.