2020 Austrian Grand Prix - Spielberg, 3-5 July

[NathanOlder]

Have we got access to any of this info Phil ?

[sosic2121]

I didnt mean to spark the discussion again and i dont think Mercedes supplied the data other than to educate those that felt there was some intent to push Albon wide.

[Phil]

Have we got access to any of this info Phil ?

I don't know. Depends on if any of the media pick up on it or if it's considered not interesting enough. I can only say what was said on the ORF broadcast during FP1. Perhaps we would get it if Mercedes actually appealed the result or something, which I think they can't because time-penalties during races can not be overthrown or something? (AFAIK this was the consensus last year after Canada when Vettel received the time penalty?).

PS: Couldn't find anything on their Twitter Account unfortunately.

[Just_a_fan]

Its impossible for a driver to lose control of a car in any corner when off throttle unless it is raining.

Tell that to Danny Ric. Off throttle entry to the last corner and, oh look, it's in the barrier with big damage.

[214270]

Have we got access to any of this info Phil ?

I don't know. Depends on if any of the media pick up on it or if it's considered not interesting enough. I can only say what was said on the ORF broadcast during FP1. Perhaps we would get it if Mercedes actually appealed the result or something, which I think they can't because time-penalties during races can not be overthrown or something? (AFAIK this was the consensus last year after Canada when Vettel received the time penalty?).

PS: Couldn't find anything on their Twitter Account unfortunately.

I dont think anything will come of it. Merc would be dumping on McLaren by doing that & that’s a soon-to-be partner. I was hoping that HAM would litigate this through social media, but he really does seem over it.

[NathanOlder]

Its impossible for a driver to lose control of a car in any corner when off throttle unless it is raining.

Tell that to Danny Ric. Off throttle entry to the last corner and, oh look, it's in the barrier with big damage.

[NathanOlder]

Have we got access to any of this info Phil ?

I don't know. Depends on if any of the media pick up on it or if it's considered not interesting enough. I can only say what was said on the ORF broadcast during FP1. Perhaps we would get it if Mercedes actually appealed the result or something, which I think they can't because time-penalties during races can not be overthrown or something? (AFAIK this was the consensus last year after Canada when Vettel received the time penalty?).

PS: Couldn't find anything on their Twitter Account unfortunately.

No worries, Cheers Phil

[PlatinumZealot]

Apparently, Mercedes have shown evidence (according to ORF) that Lewis was almost at full lock and that he did not accelerate at the incident that led to the contact with Albon.

Does not matter. Nico Rosberg was on full lock(the real full lock) and still received a penalty.

Lies. You should be down-voted for that. Video evidence alone is needed.

[sosic2121]

Apparently, Mercedes have shown evidence (according to ORF) that Lewis was almost at full lock and that he did not accelerate at the incident that led to the contact with Albon.

Does not matter. Nico Rosberg was on full lock(the real full lock) and still received a penalty.

Lies. You should be down-voted for that. Video evidence alone is needed.

https://youtu.be/fQjAQ3AhTeE
Rosberg dived in, max moved under breaking, rosberg reacted to Max and because of that compromised breaking and missed apex. Then he turned the stearing wheel to full lock. Because of rosberg compromised line max was forced wide and nico received 5s penalty.

[Andres125sx]

he does not apply full lock as we are told to believe.

"full lock" is speed dependant. Come on, this is car driving 101 that's taught to first time drivers when they're kids - you can't just apply full lock at any speed, if you try you'll either lose the back end or, more likely, the front tyres will lose grip and you'll understeer massively. On that corner, at that speed, any car will have its own "full lock" available depending on the car's design and the tyre's available grip which is down to tyre type, compound, wear etc.

To be fair, we can´t know if Lewis was full lock (for that speed) or not, he could easily be below the limit to push Albon out wich is quite usual in F1 at the exit of a corner.

But even if that was the case, as I just said that´s usual in F1 because it´s not punished, so it´s allowed. I´ve always dislike this overtolerance as I think if theres a car at the outside, the one at the inside should leave some space, but if that´s what stewards allow, that´s what drivers must do.

Only that this time the car at the outside didn´t release the throttle and didn´t went out of track, so there was a collision. What I can´t understand is the reason they punished Lewis. It´s completely inconsistent with last years decisions. I´d be angry if I was Lewis, and that´s assuming he tried to push Albon out, imagine if he didn´t and was really applying full lock!

But if this is a trend change from the stewards and now will ask to leave space, I´ll applaud that. Only that I´m not expecting that, only the usual inconsistency from the stewards. We can´t ask for consistency from different stewards at each race

[Phil]

IMO, i really dont think Lewis was punished for doing something wrong, he was punished because Albon’s race was ruined and thus for the consequence, not a “crime”.

In the same sense, Albon wasnt punished on lap1 because there was no “consequence” because Lewis avoided heavy contact by going off track. Maybe why Leclerc also wasnt punished at Monza last year either, because again, Lewis avoided a crash and thus there was no “consequence” to punish.

Personally, i think it’s wrong to punish based on consequence. It assumes in this case that Albon was free of any responsability. What would the stewards have done if Lewis had suffered a broken suspension and Albon had carried on in 2nd place without issue? Would he have then received that 5 second time penalty for “ruining Lewis’s race”? Somehow, i think yes, which IMO underlines the stupidity of the penalty in the first place.

[PlatinumZealot]

Does not matter. Nico Rosberg was on full lock(the real full lock) and still received a penalty.

Lies. You should be down-voted for that. Video evidence alone is needed.

https://youtu.be/fQjAQ3AhTeE
Rosberg dived in, max moved under breaking, rosberg reacted to Max and because of that compromised breaking and missed apex. Then he turned the stearing wheel to full lock. Because of rosberg compromised line max was forced wide and nico received 5s penalty.

Ok different incident. I thought you were refering to Austria. When Rosbered definitely wasnt full lock.

[sosic2121]

Lies. You should be down-voted for that. Video evidence alone is needed.

https://youtu.be/fQjAQ3AhTeE
Rosberg dived in, max moved under breaking, rosberg reacted to Max and because of that compromised breaking and missed apex. Then he turned the stearing wheel to full lock. Because of rosberg compromised line max was forced wide and nico received 5s penalty.

Ok different incident. I thought you were refering to Austria. When Rosbered definitely wasnt full lock.

I am sorry for the confusion. I mentioned this incident before in this thread, that's why I was vague.

[Just_a_fan]

he does not apply full lock as we are told to believe.

"full lock" is speed dependant. Come on, this is car driving 101 that's taught to first time drivers when they're kids - you can't just apply full lock at any speed, if you try you'll either lose the back end or, more likely, the front tyres will lose grip and you'll understeer massively. On that corner, at that speed, any car will have its own "full lock" available depending on the car's design and the tyre's available grip which is down to tyre type, compound, wear etc.

To be fair, we can´t know if Lewis was full lock (for that speed) or not, he could easily be below the limit to push Albon out wich is quite usual in F1 at the exit of a corner.

We can't, the team can. The team know the angle of every steering application on every lap. They will know whether the steering was more or less applied than the average of his other laps. They also know the speed through the corner.

The stewards don't say that Hamilton did a different steering movement, just that he "washed" wide. Washing wide suggests understeer which means either the front tyres were shot or he was applying more lock to avoid the impact and thus overloaded the front tyre. Either way, that's not a penalty for a situation where someone is driving around the outside.

The decision means that any driver that drives around the outside gets a free pass - if I try it around you and we touch then that's your fault. So you'll try to avoid me. So I get a free pass. That's just bunkum.

[lh13]

The decision means that any driver that drives around the outside gets a free pass - if I try it around you and we touch then that's your fault. So you'll try to avoid me. So I get a free pass. That's just bunkum.

The driver on the outside has got to be 'ahead' to get a 'free pass', so not that simple.