2016 Hungarian Grand Prix - Hungaroring, 22-24 July

[WaikeCU]

I think Lewis managed the whole race. It's a track where overtaking is very hard. Key was just to be the quicker of the two and manage a gap on the main straight. Other than that, he was simply preserving that engine as much as possible. That's what I believe he was trying to do. It makes sense since he doesn't have any PU's left for the season. So he has to make it last longer than expectations are.

[wickedz50]

@GPR-A: go through the posts in the previous pages before barging in and comment. People have agreed Verstappen's defensive moves are borderline dangerous, if not down right illegal. That's why he escaped an investigation. Having seen F1 and WEC for a long time, I've never seen anyone defending that furiously. It will cost someone their front wing in some race.

I don't need go through all that usual BS. I have posted the video and I don't think there is anything to debate really. The last year and this, Kimi has been a very messy driver and hence he himself is responsible for what happened. He doesn't have it anymore to fight tooth and nail, fair and square. Probably Spanish GP's frustration also played a part.

To fight tooth and nail, fair and square you first need a good descent car and that is what Ferrari (Kimi /Seb) does not have. Errors and frustration will follow as a consequence. RBR slowly eating into the advantage which Ferrari had in 2015 is something difficult to digest for the Ferrari. There is still lot of sorrows and frustration to follow in coming races for 2016.
Come 2017 that RBR will be more mighty than 2016.

[3jawchuck]

@GPR-A: go through the posts in the previous pages before barging in and comment. People have agreed Verstappen's defensive moves are borderline dangerous, if not down right illegal. That's why he escaped an investigation. Having seen F1 and WEC for a long time, I've never seen anyone defending that furiously. It will cost someone their front wing in some race.

What has been agreed on by forum members is irrelevant. Verstappen's defence was legal and the stewards agreed. That's all that matters. Unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of FIA conspiracy nonsense.

[Phil]

Verstappen's defence was legal and the stewards agreed. That's all that matters. Unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of FIA conspiracy nonsense.

The problem is that the sport is far from consistent enough to be throwing around claims that "the stewards agreed". I'm doubtful they even looked at it. Fair enough if they had an investigation going and decided one way or another, but they didn't.

This isn't much better than for instance qualifying, when Rosberg set purples during a double waved yellow (and not obeying it caused a driver to lose his life not too long ago) and one gets the feeling they only started a formal investigation when they realized the whole world was talking about this incident hours after it took place.

Sorry, the stewards aren't by any stretch a reliable and consistent source at all.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Verstappen's defence was legal and the stewards agreed. That's all that matters. Unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of FIA conspiracy nonsense.

The problem is that the sport is far from consistent enough to be throwing around claims that "the stewards agreed". I'm doubtful they even looked at it. Fair enough if they had an investigation going and decided one way or another, but they didn't.

This isn't much better than for instance qualifying, when Rosberg set purples during a double waved yellow (and not obeying it caused a driver to lose his life not too long ago) and one gets the feeling they only started a formal investigation when they realized the whole world was talking about this incident hours after it took place.

Sorry, the stewards aren't by any stretch a reliable and consistent source at all.

This is like Football. We all live with the nonsense of Referee's inconsistencies. For as long as FIA thinks the way the stewards are governing the races is right, we will have to accept their ruling as final and move on, no matter how much you disagree. With that, if Stewards had no issue with regards to the incident, that is the HOLY TRUTH.

[Phil]

What I was arguing was that taking the stewards "non investigation" as a claim that they agree to be the same like in football when a referee fails to see a foul and then someone claiming the referee agreed because he didn't act on it.

One way or another, it wasn't investigated, so we can't say for certainty that the stewards looked at the incident with all the data available to them.

Even if Verstappen hadn't changed direction twice, I'm doubtful Kimi would have gotten past, but I do think situations like these need to be scrutinized closer because they can lead to dangerous collisions. As I said in my lengthy post before; the one defensive rule exists for a reason. It's to make drivers commit to either the inside or the outside and give an opportunity to the driver behind to be able to attempt a pass in the safest manner possible. If we didn't have rules like this, passing could be made impossible by swerving and blocking and then we wouldn't have racing anymore.

[krisfx]

What I was arguing was that taking the stewards "non investigation" as a claim that they agree to be the same like in football when a referee fails to see a foul and then someone claiming the referee agreed because he didn't act on it.

One way or another, it wasn't investigated, so we can't say for certainty that the stewards looked at the incident with all the data available to them.

Even if Verstappen hadn't changed direction twice, I'm doubtful Kimi would have gotten past, but I do think situations like these need to be scrutinized closer because they can lead to dangerous collisions. As I said in my lengthy post before; the one defensive rule exists for a reason. It's to make drivers commit to either the inside or the outside and give an opportunity to the driver behind to be able to attempt a pass in the safest manner possible. If we didn't have rules like this, passing could be made impossible by swerving and blocking and then we wouldn't have racing anymore.

The flipside is that the one move rule also makes the defending driver a sitting duck after that move, especially in DRS zones. I don't think removing it would lead to less racing, as racing is still about the chase, battle and pass, not just someone cruising past because the defending driver is now fully committed to a daft line.

[Phil]

Stumbled about this youtube video of the post-race drivers conference where the topic came back about how fast you are allowed to go during a double waved yellow.

IMO, I think the question raised by Lewis is spot on.

If you watch the onboard of Nico's lap at precisely 54 seconds into the above youtube video, as he is approaching the left hander with significant speed (while on the right double yellows are being waved), I do have to question at which point, not being able to see around that corner, would he feel confident enough to safely come to a complete stop if he realized that there were marshals on the track around that bend.

I'm simply baffled how this was not deemed a dangerous and punishable offense.

On one hand, you have the sport introducing ridiculous rules, safety cars being driven to the point the cars immediately change to intermediates (Silverstone) all in the name of safety, then we have the Halo coming next year, but pretty much ignoring a double-yellow waved is something that goes unpunished? After Bianchis death?

Got to love the circus of F1. And yes, I do believe this deserves it's own thread. And I don't care much about the driver in question being Nico. For all I care, it could have been Hamilton in this car - it's a dangerous offense IMO.

[TwanV]

Good point. So let's level the playing field then by disallowing dummies.

[3jawchuck]

Verstappen's defence was legal and the stewards agreed. That's all that matters. Unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of FIA conspiracy nonsense.

The problem is that the sport is far from consistent enough to be throwing around claims that "the stewards agreed". I'm doubtful they even looked at it. Fair enough if they had an investigation going and decided one way or another, but they didn't.

This isn't much better than for instance qualifying, when Rosberg set purples during a double waved yellow (and not obeying it caused a driver to lose his life not too long ago) and one gets the feeling they only started a formal investigation when they realized the whole world was talking about this incident hours after it took place.

Sorry, the stewards aren't by any stretch a reliable and consistent source at all.

My wording may not have been clear enough. I said "...and the stewards agreed" not "because the stewards agreed". Regardless of what the stewards would have said or done, it was a legal defence. Regardless of the steward's decision on Rosberg in qualifying, Rosberg should have been penalised, albeit I believe lightly.

Verstappen followed the rules, he only made one defensive change of direction, took his line round the corner (an odd one, true) and left room for where Kimi would end up. Kimi's front wing was never anywhere beside Verstappen's rear wheel so the only rule in play is 27.6 of the sporting code.

[TAG]

Has Arrivabene stated yet why Ferrari didn't win the GP yesterday? I've been keeping track all season but haven't come across the official reason in Hungary yet. There would have usually been a reason by now.

[TAG]

The problem is that the sport is far from consistent enough to be throwing around claims that "the stewards agreed". I'm doubtful they even looked at it. Fair enough if they had an investigation going and decided one way or another, but they didn't.

This isn't much better than for instance qualifying, when Rosberg set purples during a double waved yellow (and not obeying it caused a driver to lose his life not too long ago) and one gets the feeling they only started a formal investigation when they realized the whole world was talking about this incident hours after it took place.

Sorry, the stewards aren't by any stretch a reliable and consistent source at all.

It's the same issue I've got with the Pole lap Saturday, not whether Nico did or didn't. The most troubling thing is that they didn't even have an investigation. Only the official request from Red Bull afterwards forcing the issue.

[GrandAxe]

He did move twice, once to the outside and once to the inside. The clever bit is that the second move was combined with "corner entry".
Plus it looked very dramatic from Raikkonens car with his own weaving, trying to go past.

Please read the rules. One defensive move is, moving to right (or left - straying away from racing line) and then coming back to left (or right - coming back to racing line). That is one move and that is allowed.

Again, it's not about adherence to the 'rules', his moves are made way too late/just before corner entry. THAT'S THE POINT.

Precisely. Erratic moves in the braking zone are irresponsible, frankly dangerous and considered illegal.

20.4 Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason.

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08 ... of-racing/

[sosic2121]

It was Raikonen who weaved, Verstappen moved only once wich is allowed.

On two separate occasions Verstappen moved back to the inside when Raikkonen behind was under braking. He also weaved all the way down the pit straight on more than one occasion.

This kid had his warning in Monaco last year when he could have been killed. Raikkonen was far too kind and should have done what drivers would have done in the past - taken him into a quiet spot and beat the ever living --- out of him. It's for his own good.

The stewards were right in their decision. He only moved once. But the way he does it is not very nice imo. He waits till the attacking driver chooses a side and is too close to crossover and then moves to block. Just like Rosberg did to Hamilton in Spain. it is not illegal but I think it gives the defender too much of an advantage and is risky. In champ car these kind of moves were illegal and perhaps it should be in F1.

By the way the comparison with Monaco eludes me. When was he defending dangerously there?

dear lord, will you stop with rosberg.

[Sonador]

The video GPR-A posted is evidence enough that altough it is on the limit, is perfectly legal.
Not to late, or eratic.


To me the big talkingpoints of this weekend are the pole lap under double yellow flags, and the radio rules.