2017 Formula 1 Azerbaijan Grand PrixFormula 1

[Jimlaad43]

If there are marshalls on the circuit when a safety car restart is imminent, there are much bigger issues at hand.

Never assume. Yellow flags mean yellow flags. Seb is lucky he only got a penalty for dangerous driving, and not one also for causing a collision under yellow flags.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Vettel wants to talk to Hamilton and "clear the air". Hamilton says he's not interested in anything Vettel has to say.

So you're saying that Hamilton was childish?

 

[Disco_Volante]

If there are marshalls on the circuit when a safety car restart is imminent, there are much bigger issues at hand.


This is where I stopped reading. Where is your proof that Vettel deliberately hit Hamilton - that when he pulled alongside the Mercedes, it was with the intention of colliding?

So you're trying to tell us that someone who has been in F1 for over a decade, who has been perfectly capable of controlling his car one-handed at race speeds, and has been perfectly capable of driving while very angry, has lost control of his car at very low speed?

Besides, he pulled alongside Hamilton deliberately, and I think he could have been penalized for just doing that. If that was the case, would you say that he didn't accelerate deliberately?

Edit: Oh, and by the way, I've checked the replay again, and you can clearly see Vettel completely lets go of the wheel right after he collides with Hamilton the first time, and the car went completely straight, the wheel didn't turn a degree. Seems proof to me.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've checked the replay again

Great!

Now, check the right part of the replay. He takes hold of the wheel again and pulls alongside Hamilton. That's when the contact happens. Prove to me that when he pulled alongside Hamilton, he did so with the intention of hitting him.

 

[Touring Mars]

Prove to me that when he pulled alongside Hamilton, he did so with the intention of hitting him.

Please tell me you aren't suggesting that the ramming incident was an accident?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So you're trying to tell us that someone who has been in F1 for over a decade, who has been perfectly capable of controlling his car one-handed at race speeds, and has been perfectly capable of driving while very angry, has lost control of his car at very low speed?

You're right it's completely preposterous. Clearly the following happened:

Someone who has been in F1 for over a decade, who has been perfectly capable of controlling his car one-handed at race speeds, and has been perfectly capable of driving while very angry, has deliberately driven into the side of another competitor despite the FIA's habit of handing down punitive punishments to drivers - Michael Schumacher, Nelson Piquet Jnr., Pastor Maldonado - who did exactly that.

he pulled alongside Hamilton deliberately, and I think he could have been penalized for just doing that

Nope. He pulled alongside Hamilton deliberately, but technically you can do that. You just can't pass until the first safety car line.

Please tell me you aren't suggesting that the ramming incident was an accident?

It's a pretty serious accusation. I think it demands clear proof that when he pulled alongside Hamilton he did so for the purposes of ramming him.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Welp, it's all Vettel's fault.

How do i know? Villeneuve has come out in support of him...
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-vettel-hamilton-baku-villeneuve-923932/

 

[Disco_Volante]

Great!

Now, check the right part of the replay. He takes hold of the wheel again and pulls alongside Hamilton. That's when the contact happens. Prove to me that when he pulled alongside Hamilton, he did so with the intention of hitting him.

The proof lies in that he can control his car. You can't seriously think that he forgot how to drive a second later.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The proof lies in that he can control his car.

That's not proof. That's conjecture. Based on your logic, Bottas deliberately hit Räikkönen and Ocon deliberately hit Pérez because both Bottas and Ocon can control their cars.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

Do you think there might be a slight difference between collisions at the very limit of control and under racing circumstances, to a low speed collision under safety car?...

Only one person knows whether they pulled alongside Hamilton to hit him, but the rest of us can only guess based on what we saw. Either way though, he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

[Disco_Volante]

That's not proof. That's conjecture. Based on your logic, Bottas deliberately hit Räikkönen and Ocon deliberately hit Pérez because both Bottas and Ocon can control their cars.

I think they are completely different kinds of incidents. Bottas, well I think he lost control. And Ocon, while I don't think he wanted to take out Pérez, he certainly pushed him to the wall.

Anyway, Pezzarinho17 said all I'd say.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Do you think there might be a slight difference between collisions at the very limit of control and under racing circumstances, to a low speed collision under safety car?

There is a difference, but I'm simply trying to point out the absurdity of the argument. The claim is "Vettel knows how to control his car, so it had to be deliberate", which amounts to "I cannot imagine Vettel losing control, so it must have been deliberate". That's a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from incredulity - you assume that because you cannot conceive of one outcome being true it must therefore be false.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's a pretty serious accusation. I think it demands clear proof that when he pulled alongside Hamilton he did so for the purposes of ramming him.

Yeh, it is a very serious allegation, but the evidence is clear cut. At this juncture, since the stewards' decision has already established guilt, the onus is on Vettel and Ferrari to prove that the penalty was unjustified - buona fortuna with that, as they say.

I think the point made above is a valid one - if, as you suggest, Vettel steered into Hamilton but did so by accident, then it would be an incredible piece of bad luck/timing for him to lose control of his car at that precise moment and under those circumstances. It is incongruous in the extreme that a driver of Vettel's ability could suddenly lose control of his car in that manner.*

But frankly, I think the suggestion that the collision was an accident is an exercise in applied equine fecal matter; as alluded to above, the 'proof' of intent is quite hard to come by, short of fitting drivers with mind-reading equipment - the stewards can only go on what the driver did and infer intent from that.

-

* There is also the remarkably 'lucky' outcome to consider too - Vettel hit Hamilton at the exact place (wheel to wheel) with the requisite amount of force (i.e. not enough to cause damage but enough to register)... couple that with the extreme unlikelihood of the 'accident' itself, and you have a problem explaining how it was not deliberate. Of course, as has already been said, even if it were an extremely unlikely accident, it was the unequivocally deliberate act of pulling alongside to remonstrate with his hand that 'caused' the collision, so either way the blame is on Vettel and the penalty is justified.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

At this juncture, since the stewards' decision has already established guilt

He was penalised for dangerous driving. The charge can include delibetately or accidentally hitting Hamilton. It's the standard penalty for causing an avoidable accident behind the safety car.

if, as you suggest, Vettel steered into Hamilton but did so by accident, then it would be an incredible piece of bad luck/timing for him to lose control of his car at that precise moment and under those circumstances

I never said he lost control. I said that when he pulled alongside Hamilton, he misjudged the angle. The two didn't immediately collide - Vettel had enough time to gesticulate at Hamilton, and in the on-board replays show that he clearly isn't looking at the road ahead of him.

 

[Touring Mars]

I never said he lost control. I said that when he pulled alongside Hamilton, he misjudged the angle.

If Vettel can 'misjudge the angle' as badly as that, he shouldn't have a driver's license let alone a Super License.

 

[Nessy]

I never said he lost control. I said that when he pulled alongside Hamilton, he misjudged the angle.

Please prove that Vettel misjudged the angle.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If Vettel can 'misjudge the angle' as badly as that, he shouldn't have driver's license let alone a Super License.

You've never made a misjudgement when you're angry?

All of this still comes back to an argument from incredulity. You cannot conceive of him misjudging the angle of the car, so you assume he must have done it deliberately.

Please prove that Vettel misjudged the angle.

That's not the way it works. The accusation that he did it deliberately is the more serious of the two, so there is a greater need for the people making said claim to prove it. The stewards function as a judiciary, enforcing the rules and regulation. Therefore, Vettel should be assumed to be innocent until his guilt is proven.

What you're doing is called shifting the burden of proof.

 

[PzR Slim]

It's incredible that someone can feel so much loathing for someone else that it would lead to judgement being clouded in this way. At what point do you question someone's sanity?

 

[Touring Mars]

All of this still comes back to argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You could say the same for the argument that the collision was an accident - all of the available evidence points to it being done on purpose - the intent (the precise speed and steering control in order to draw alongside, followed by subsequent steering inputs required to hit Hamilton, and the timeframe in which each step was carried out), the motive (Vettel has admitted that he was upset with Hamilton, so we know that he had a 'motive') and the outcome (the 'wheel to wheel' contact, the force used)... so where is the evidence that it was accidental?

You cannot conceive of him misjudging the angle of the car, so you assume he must have done it deliberately.

No, I can entertain the idea that it is possible - I just don't buy it. I've never seen an F1 driver 'misjudge the angle of the car' to anything like that degree.

Again, the opposite point can be leveled - you cannot conceive of him ramming another car on purpose, so you assume he must have done it by accident. The trouble is that all of the available evidence points to nefarious intent, including the fact that Vettel has a pretty strong track record when it comes to 'being able to point an F1 car where he intends it to go'.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

But what evidence exists? The telemetry probably shows clearly that Vettels steering is pointed right, and we can all see that anyway. So what we are deciding here is whether it was an accident or on purpose. What evidence, besides Vettel pleading guilty, can possibly indicate intent?...

 

[ShiftingGears]

I think the incident is great - the fact that it's between the two championship contenders will make the rest of the season more fascinating.

 

[Nessy]

That's not the way it works.

I'm actually still on the fence with regards to whether it was deliberate or not. You said "I said that when he pulled alongside Hamilton, he misjudged the angle", therefore you're making the statement that 'he misjudged the angle'. Doesn't that require proof of some kind?

 

[Famine]

the on-board replays show that he clearly isn't looking at the road ahead of him.

Where the marshals may be, because there's a safety car and waved yellow flags.

If there are marshalls on the circuit when a safety car restart is imminent, there are much bigger issues at hand.

But nevertheless, they may be there, because there's a safety car (even if it's gone in and the leader becomes the safety car, SC notifications are still out) and waved yellow flags. That means you must behave as if they are and must be prepared to stop.

Again, this is basic national B licence stuff - you're literally tested on it in order to get the licence - that a four-time world champion shouldn't be getting wrong because he's angry because he thinks (wrongly, according to telemetry evidence as stated by the stewards) that the car in front brake-checked him.

 

[Jimlaad43]

I'm surprised pm hasn't broken out a picture like this yet to prove 100% unequivocally that Vettel was 100000000% innocent

Do you understand what the phrase "Move on, you're wrong" means? I'd advise you take it here.

 

[Famine]

And if you're acting as the safety car, you have the responsibility to ensure the race restarts safely. Hamilton was clearly trying to bunch the field up, which means he has to be aware of where other cars are.

Okay. That's not really relevant to Vettel ignoring the basic minimum standards of driving under the safety car and not even looking at the track (as you say) in order to remonstrate with another driver, and doing so in such an aggressive fashion that he came into contact with another car, while he was supposed to be driving in a manner that's mandated to preserve the lives of marshals.

I also find it odd that he didn't overtake so that his angry gesticulations could actually be seen by the driver he was aiming them at.

 

[Touring Mars]

When Michael Schumacher hit Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez in 1997, he was excluded from the championship because the FIA were able to demonstrate that he made an additional steering input. In this case, the telemetry does not show anything like that.

Do you have the telemetry data?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That's not really relevant

I was trying to head off an argument that I thought was about to come up.

you cannot conceive of him ramming another car on purpose, so you assume he must have done it by accident

I can conceive of it. I have seen plenty of instances where people get so angry that their first response is to lash out. Granted, it's with their fists rather than a racing car, but I'm not cynical enough to assume the worst in everyone.

all of the available evidence points to nefarious intent

Except that the stewards didn't disqualify, exclude or ban him. If the "nefarious intent" was so obvious, why didn't they punish him accordingly?

 

[Famine]

I was trying to head off an argument that I thought was about to come up.

I'm only interested in the guy who thought it was fine to ignore safety instruction because he was angry with another driver - justifiably or not.

 

[Touring Mars]

Except that the stewards didn't disqualify, exclude or ban him. If the "nefarious intent" was so obvious, why didn't they punish him accordingly?

There's several reasons, one of which is basically what you are saying, which is that they can only apply a punishment to what they can reasonably attribute as a deliberate act at the time - so they were limited to merely punishing the 'dangerous driving' bit (pulling alongside and taking one hand off the steering wheel). However, I think there is more than enough evidence to warrant investigation into the other aspect - the intentionality of the ramming incident and the intended outcome of that - which arguably was beyond the scope of the stewards to decide during the race.

As for what Vettel intended to achieve, he pretty much stated after the race that he did what he did because he couldn't speak to Hamilton directly, clearly inferring that he intended to make LH aware of his annoyance by other means. This is important because it demonstrates that he did indeed intend to make LH aware of his grievance, strongly refuting the view that the collision was an accident. However, though physically similar, the intended effect is clearly different to what Schumacher intended to achieve when he rammed Villeneuve - that was nothing short of trying to rob someone of the Championship itself, and hence was fully deserving of a massive punishment.

I reckon that Vettel will get away with a much more lenient punishment than Schumacher did because the intent was likely different (i.e. he didn't intend to take Lewis out of the race), but also because of the fact that a more severe punishment (such as a ban from races) would severely impact on the fans who want to see them race.

--

When Michael Schumacher hit Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez in 1997, he was excluded from the championship because the FIA were able to demonstrate that he made an additional steering input. In this case, the telemetry does not show anything like that.

Again, do you have the telemetry data?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Oh dear, such an interesting GP and such heated debate over Vettel this vs Hamilton that.

I don't care much for either driver (or any other on the grid, with the possible exception of Alonso, due to the continuing waste of talent I've been witnessing) but to me it is clear that (unless both Hamilton and Vettel are incredibly STUPID) :

- Whatever Hamilton did (brake or simply wait a little longer to gain speed), he didn't do it to make Vettel hit his rear tyres. The risk of a puncture far outwheights any gain from damaging Vettel's front wing. So, to me, Hamilton was ahead, he had the field leadership, Vettel should keep a good enough distance to account for any tyre warming, brake heating antics, and if he didn't that's entirely a Vettel problem and misjudgement, not Hamilton's.

So, on what Hamilton did, it's Ham -1 Vet - 0

- About Vettel, he was surprised by Ham not giving it some throttle there, he bumped Ham's car, broke a few pieces of his front wing, got mad, and had a rage moment (putting his car alongside Hamilton's, taking one hand off the Wheel to protest). We can't see, from the onboard camera, if he deliberately turned his car into Hamilton's. From the outside it seems so. But I don't believe it (no telemetry here, just my opinion without facts to back it up). Again, these cars are fragile, the tyres even more, and the risk of damage or puncture would make a deliberate punt to be - again - Stupid.

But if he can't keep his cool and if in the process he forgets to drive the car properly ... that's entirely his problem.

So, on what Vettel did, it's now Ham-2 Vet-0

A penalty was due, and I do think Vet got a light one. This was no racing incident, even without any foul intention, this was extremely careless, bordering on childish, behaviour.


Now ...

I'm happy for Ricciardo, gutted for Max. Amazed at Lance Stroll, the future will tell if this was a freak thing, but it isn't pure luck. He did what he had to do and he entirely deserved to be on that podium after a race with so much attrition.