2017 Formula 1 Azerbaijan Grand PrixFormula 1

[OutlawQuadrnt]

As mentioned earlier this HAM-VET / VET-HAM is a developing story.

FIA just announced (7PM CET) that they will start with further investigation/examination

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/355150/fia-to-further-examine-vettel-hamilton-clash/

I'm not sure how to feel about this. At the time of the race, I figured the incident was something that required analysis that was best left for post-race to have the requisite time. Instead, they instituted a penalty within the race itself related to the incident but doesn't mention anything about additional investigation until a few days later. If the FIA determines the matter requires a more severe penalty, how can they apply it when Vettel already had been punished via the 10 second stop and go? It muddles things.

That said, I don't expect any further action.

 

[LumpiestFish]

While Vettel's move was incredibly idiotic, the 'danger' of it was totally blown out of the water when it happened. They were going what, 60kmh when the contact was made? Realistically, there was very, very little chance for accident to cause injury those circumstances.

 

[NotThePrez]

While Vettel's move was incredibly idiotic, the 'danger' of it was totally blown out of the water when it happened. They were going what, 60kmh when the contact was made? Realistically, there was very, very little chance for accident to cause injury those circumstances.

I think at this point, the FIA is more-or-less making an example out of him. They're basically saying "We don't care how many wins/titles you have, you do stupid 🤬, we will come down on you."

I seriously doubt anything else will come of this.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Realistically, there was very, very little chance for accident to cause injury those circumstances.

I think the FIA has more concerns about what sort of standards this sets. Other drivers might see it and think it's an appropriate way of settling disputes.

I do think the restart procedure needs to be looked at, though. Right now, the restart is at the discretion of the leader, which is the way it should be. The problem - and maybe this is just unique to Baku - is that the lead driver is going to try and back the field up to make second place vulnerable. That's precisely what Hamilton was trying to do, because the final sector of the circuit exaggerates the performance of the cars.

Maybe there should be a line somewhere on the circuit where the driver's speed is limited. Once he crosses it, he cannot accelerate until he intends to restart the race.

 

[mustafur]

I think the FIA has more concerns about what sort of standards this sets. Other drivers might see it and think it's an appropriate way of settling disputes.

I do think the restart procedure needs to be looked at, though. Right now, the restart is at the discretion of the leader, which is the way it should be. The problem - and maybe this is just unique to Baku - is that the lead driver is going to try and back the field up to make second place vulnerable. That's precisely what Hamilton was trying to do, because the final sector of the circuit exaggerates the performance of the cars.

Maybe there should be a line somewhere on the circuit where the driver's speed is limited. Once he crosses it, he cannot accelerate until he intends to restart the race.

No I disagree, cars behind should just be able to follow the lead car without trying to revenge hit them.

That said I think Baku proves Rolling starts provide loads more action then standing starts.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

without trying to revenge hit them

The first contact was revenge? Revenge for what?

 

[mustafur]

The first contact was revenge? Revenge for what?

I was unaware Lewis wasn't the leader?

I did say cars behind.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I did say cars behind.

I don't think you understood my point.

The thing that set all of this in motion was the warning from Mercedes to Hamilton. His first restart was marginal - he was dangerously close to passing the safety car before it had fully returned to the pits. That's why he slowed down at the next restart and why Vettel misjudged the distance.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm not sure how to feel about this. At the time of the race, I figured the incident was something that required analysis that was best left for post-race to have the requisite time. Instead, they instituted a penalty within the race itself related to the incident but doesn't mention anything about additional investigation until a few days later. If the FIA determines the matter requires a more severe penalty, how can they apply it when Vettel already had been punished via the 10 second stop and go? It muddles things.

That said, I don't expect any further action.

As has been said already, the stewards are compelled to act quickly but should arguably err on the side of caution and punish only what they can firmly establish at the time. That shouldn't preclude a more harsh penalty once all the data has been looked at and a more definitive conclusion drawn as to what exactly happened. A problem might arise if the stewards had given Vettel a much more severe penalty (like disqualification from the race) only to find that it should have been less severe, but I don't think it is a problem the other way around - if a penalty is too lenient, then there ought to be a way of increasing it to an appropriate level.

That the incident happened at low speed and no damage was done to the opponent's car is arguably irrelevant - deliberately colliding with an opponent is several notches up from merely 'causing a collision', especially given that it was done in anger and in retaliation for what was (wrongly) perceived to be an illegal maneuver by the other driver. If it were not for the fact that Vettel/Ferrari are back in the hunt for the WDC and the powers-that-be in the sport will not want to jeopardize wrecking what could be an enthralling season, I reckon the FIA should/would throw the book at Vettel and given him at least a one race ban - but I expect they will opt for a suspended ban or something like that, but who knows. This is where Vettel's lack of contrition and his frankly ludicrous comments after the race will not play in his favour.

 

[marco89IT]

He has more to lose?


Which is all the more sad because in reality Kimi came off worse from it, and had to have an entire floor/undertray replaced and was only lucky enough to have it happen due to the red flag. I feel most of the penalties that did or didn't happen were based on this simple notion. Vettel's penalty was supposedly under investigation and would be dealt with post race, however it's amazing once Lewis lost the lead they made the call to punish Seb. And the same with the Kimi and Bottas collision. The fact that Bottas was two laps down to the rest of the field seemed to be enough punishment for a move that didn't work out well. Over time Kimi's damage from the incident showed though and far worse.

I think they didn't penalized Bottas simply because they judged it as a racing incident. There's been a very similar situation in Australia, no penalties for Magnussen:



Deciding a penalty based on the amount of damage suffered by the drivers involved would be ridiculous, even though I agree the timing on the Vettel's penalty was very suspicious. Way later than the accident happened and right when Hamilton was called into the pits, just perfect to have another 20 laps with the championship leaders very close on the track.
Just for the sake of analyzing precedents on the Hamilton-Vettel incident, there's this one during free practice in Monaco, Maldonado received only a 10 places grid penalty:



On a joking side, I guess that while the FIA panel will be in front of Vettel in Paris reprimanding him and discussing further penalties, there will be Chase Carey sitting on the side, quietly saying "thanks Sebastian" while smoothing his moustache. Considering the two drivers involved, the teams they drive for, the championship situation and the lack of interest in F1 nowadays, that's the biggest drama they could've asked for.

 

[Jimlaad43]

I think they didn't penalized Bottas simply because they judged it as a racing incident. There's been a very similar situation in Australia, no penalties for Magnussen:



Deciding a penalty based on the amount of damage suffered by the drivers involved would be ridiculous, even though I agree the timing on the Vettel's penalty was very suspicious. Way later than the accident happened and right when Hamilton was called into the pits, just perfect to have another 20 laps with the championship leaders very close on the track.
Just for the sake of analyzing precedents on the Hamilton-Vettel incident, there's this one during free practice in Monaco, Maldonado received only a 10 places grid penalty:



On a joking side, I guess that while the FIA panel will be in front of Vettel in Paris reprimanding him and discussing further penalties, there will be Chase Carey sitting on the side, quietly saying "thanks Sebastian" while smoothing his moustache. Considering the two drivers involved, the teams they drive for, the championship situation and the lack of interest in F1 nowadays, that's the biggest drama they could've asked for.

This last paragraph.

Look how much Formula E benefitted from the massive Prost/Heidfeld crash in their first race, or how much Kris Meeke's car park antics from Mexico helped boost the viewing figures of the respective series'. As much as Vettel was a compete idiot, it has helped make Austria a must-watch race.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Deciding a penalty based on the amount of damage suffered by the drivers involved would be ridiculous

Except the stewards do it all the time. If you cause an avoidable collision that ends another driver's race, it's much more serious than causing an avoidable collision that just ends your race.

I agree the timing on the Vettel's penalty was very suspicious. Way later than the accident happened and right when Hamilton was called into the pits

The stewards are very conservative when it comes to handing out big penalties because they know that it can drastically change the course of a race. If they are considering handing one out, they'll want to make sure they get it right. They only place they freely hand out ten-second stop/go penalties is Silverstone, and that's only because the pit lane is so short; a drive-through there is almost no penalty at all.

 

[Dhalism]

While Vettel's move was incredibly idiotic, the 'danger' of it was totally blown out of the water when it happened. They were going what, 60kmh when the contact was made? Realistically, there was very, very little chance for accident to cause injury those circumstances.

Senna-Prost in 89 and Hill-Schumacher were low speed collisions as well. A crash at any speed can influence the outcome of a championship

 

[BrainsBush]

We and also the FIA knows that this was not the first 'incident of frustration' of Vettel (no matter if he is right or wrong he should temper his emotions also in the heat of the moment and even with high adrenaline otherwise he and Arrivabene should follow the anger management course).

That he got a penalty during the race will defenitely be taken into consideration when the wise men debate about this matter.
I think after the race also other teams and other high placed F1 stakeholders were asked about their opinion about this incident and FIA had to simply start so called further investigation.

Unfortunate for Vettel and the audience because it is good to see the rivalry at the top and you do not want to win or lose by judges decisions. It has to happen on the tracks within the difficult rules

 

[GroupB]

https://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/trial-and-retribution/amp/

 

[OutlawQuadrnt]

As has been said already, the stewards are compelled to act quickly but should arguably err on the side of caution and punish only what they can firmly establish at the time. That shouldn't preclude a more harsh penalty once all the data has been looked at and a more definitive conclusion drawn as to what exactly happened. A problem might arise if the stewards had given Vettel a much more severe penalty (like disqualification from the race) only to find that it should have been less severe, but I don't think it is a problem the other way around - if a penalty is too lenient, then there ought to be a way of increasing it to an appropriate level.

That the incident happened at low speed and no damage was done to the opponent's car is arguably irrelevant - deliberately colliding with an opponent is several notches up from merely 'causing a collision', especially given that it was done in anger and in retaliation for what was (wrongly) perceived to be an illegal maneuver by the other driver. If it were not for the fact that Vettel/Ferrari are back in the hunt for the WDC and the powers-that-be in the sport will not want to jeopardize wrecking what could be an enthralling season, I reckon the FIA should/would throw the book at Vettel and given him at least a one race ban - but I expect they will opt for a suspended ban or something like that, but who knows. This is where Vettel's lack of contrition and his frankly ludicrous comments after the race will not play in his favour.

They did have the advantage of a red flag to give the stewards enough time to look over the incident and assess some kind of penalty. Without that red flag, could they have been able to act in time? I'm curious how quickly they went over it and said "This requires a penalty but how severe?"

 

[Haitauer]

Havent read all that is said here, but my opinion is that the bump wasnt on purpose by Vettel. I think he unintentionally slapped the wheel while giving the hand signals. Reckless yes, amateur error yes, unprofessional yes very much - but not intentional.

Should be punished, but not as intentional dangerous driving - i think Hamiltons (engine)brake checking was potentially much more dangerous.

Plus this kind of stuff makes F1 a lot more interesting as long as no accidents result.

 

[Rednose58]

The GT Planet article mentions:
Why Punish Him Twice?
"Sebastian gaining an advantage even though he misbehaved could be the reason the FIA have launched a probe into his conduct. Vettel broke the rules but still finished ahead of the innocent party he interfered with. Post-race telemetry showed that Hamilton kept a consistent speed before the restart and did not brake-check Vettel. This would make arguing Vettel’s case rather difficult. However, he could argue that he made an error in judgement and took his penalty during the race respectfully"
-----------------------
Hamilton's misfortune of ending up behind Vettel has nothing to do with the contact incident. His team didn't secure his safety device properly and that had to be fixed in the pit lane. Hamilton has not been disadvantaged by the safety cars or the contact incident. So, it would be wrong to site that as a reason to re-visit Vettel's penalty.

The FIA can decide whatever they want. If they do want to go back, it should be after a review of past precedents and similar circumstances to ensure consistency. The in-race penalty was the most they could do without a black flag. Now they can decide if it was enough or if they want to do a post race DQ, or further grid penalties or more penalty points on the super license or whatever.

This will be a hot topic for a while - I like it. Competitors at that level should not be BFFs

 

[DesertPenguin09]

The GT Planet article mentions:
Why Punish Him Twice?
"Sebastian gaining an advantage even though he misbehaved could be the reason the FIA have launched a probe into his conduct. Vettel broke the rules but still finished ahead of the innocent party he interfered with. Post-race telemetry showed that Hamilton kept a consistent speed before the restart and did not brake-check Vettel. This would make arguing Vettel’s case rather difficult. However, he could argue that he made an error in judgement and took his penalty during the race respectfully"
-----------------------
Hamilton's misfortune of ending up behind Vettel has nothing to do with the contact incident. His team didn't secure his safety device properly and that had to be fixed in the pit lane. Hamilton has not been disadvantaged by the safety cars or the contact incident. So, it would be wrong to site that as a reason to re-visit Vettel's penalty.

The FIA can decide whatever they want. If they do want to go back, it should be after a review of past precedents and similar circumstances to ensure consistency. The in-race penalty was the most they could do without a black flag. Now they can decide if it was enough or if they want to do a post race DQ, or further grid penalties or more penalty points on the super license or whatever.

This will be a hot topic for a while - I like it. Competitors at that level should not be BFFs

Imagine the IRs on this one...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think the FIA has more concerns about what sort of standards this sets. Other drivers might see it and think it's an appropriate way of settling disputes.

I do think the restart procedure needs to be looked at, though. Right now, the restart is at the discretion of the leader, which is the way it should be. The problem - and maybe this is just unique to Baku - is that the lead driver is going to try and back the field up to make second place vulnerable. That's precisely what Hamilton was trying to do, because the final sector of the circuit exaggerates the performance of the cars.

Maybe there should be a line somewhere on the circuit where the driver's speed is limited. Once he crosses it, he cannot accelerate until he intends to restart the race.

Where is your evidence that he was settling a dispute? At the very least, you should acknowledge that the available evidence does not definitively prove he was settling a dispute. All you can prove from the onboard footage is that Vettel pulled alongside Hamilton, but as they were not parallel, contact was inevitable unless Vettel corrected his steering or backed out. But the fact that they made contact doesn't prove that the contact was deliberate and part of a dispute.

 

[Disco_Volante]

Where is your evidence that he was settling a dispute? At the very least, you should acknowledge that the available evidence does not definitively prove he was settling a dispute. All you can prove from the onboard footage is that Vettel pulled alongside Hamilton, but as they were not parallel, contact was inevitable unless Vettel corrected his steering or backed out. But the fact that they made contact doesn't prove that the contact was deliberate and part of a dispute.

Deja vu

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

i think Hamiltons (engine)brake checking was potentially much more dangerous.

Plus this kind of stuff makes F1 a lot more interesting as long as no accidents result.

What dangerous engine brake checking are we talking about? We're are on about cars that can go from 200mph to a standstill in a couple of seconds aren't we? The ones that pull several G's and make the blood rush to the front of your head when you mash the brake pedal? Can you point it out on this telemetry graph for me?

The whole situation does make things more interesting, yes, but it doesn't take away the fact that what happened was totally irresponsible and unacceptable. It wouldn't fly anywhere else, this isn't Banger racing/Demo Derby.

 

[Haitauer]

What dangerous engine brake checking are we talking about? We're are on about cars that can go from 200mph to a standstill in a couple of seconds aren't we? The ones that pull several G's and make the blood rush to the front of your head when you mash the brake pedal? Can you point it out on this telemetry graph for me?



The whole situation does make things more interesting, yes, but it doesn't take away the fact that what happened was totally irresponsible and unacceptable. It wouldn't fly anywhere else, this isn't Banger racing/Demo Derby.

You can see unnecessary deceleration after apex there. Yes its steady, but not normal after apex. Theres a brief moment of no deceleration after apex and then more deceleration. Provoking if nothing more.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

You can see unnecessary deceleration after apex there. Yes its steady, but not normal after apex. Theres a brief moment of no deceleration after apex and then more deceleration. Provoking if nothing more.

It's what, about ten to a dozen kph across nearly 2 seconds? That's a difference of a spirited walking pace in an F1 car. Regardless, leader controls the pace and the driver behind is responsible for not running in to them. Why did no other driver on the grid rear end Vettel, who slowed down more, or anyone else?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You can see unnecessary deceleration after apex there. Yes its steady, but not normal after apex.

Normality in this case is defined by the actions of the lead car once the SC has handed over to them in previous similar instances. In this case Hamilton did the same thing on both restarts, it was normal. Bear in mind that the leader has to slow the pack up to allow the SC to return to the pits, in Baku this is more pronounced than at other circuits. Hamilton was actually travelling more quickly at that point of the second restart than he had been at the first. Both Hamilton and Vettel show just under 0.5s of constant velocity at the apex, that may be due to something as simple as a gear change off the brakes (which they both were).

Provoking if nothing more.

Provoking is all it has to be if you're arguing for some kind of provocation. There was none. Vettel made a simple mistake and ran into the back of Hamilton.

 

[nascarfan1400]

My 2 cents on the senario -

They shouldnt open up an issue that already closed. The penalty was already given. If they feel 10 seconds is too soft then they should have made it a post race investigation and dealt with it that way. Once the penalty is issued its case closed as far as I see it. Anything past this point is unfair.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My 2 cents on the senario -

They shouldnt open up an issue that already closed. The penalty was already given. If they feel 10 seconds is too soft then they should have made it a post race investigation and dealt with it that way.

This is a post-race investigation. All drivers know that stewards' penalties are up for review in either direction - and that's always the case with "disrepute" cases such as this one. Vettel's last temper tantrum was dealt with long after the teams had packed up and gone home. In this case the stewards gave a penalty and surely knew full well that their decision would be reviewed and could be added to.

 

[moparmanmike]

Remind me to not invite vettle into my private lobby on assetto corsa

 

[niky]

You can see unnecessary deceleration after apex there. Yes its steady, but not normal after apex. Theres a brief moment of no deceleration after apex and then more deceleration. Provoking if nothing more.

Not really.

It's not normal to decelerate behind the safety car? This is not a racing situation. Hamilton has every right to bunch up the field before the restart, and drivers leading restarts almost always do just that.

Do note that he was moving faster than the first safety car restart, so he would not have been expecting Vettel to hit him at all.

The graph illustrates quite clearly what we see in the replay... Hamilton keeps a steady, slowly decaying pace... Vettel, lunges, slows, and then lunges at the corner apex and runs smack into Hamilton.

It's not unexpected slowing of the lead car that's the problem. It's Vettel's driving-like-a-fifteen-year-old-working-a-clutch-for-the-first-time that's the problem.

 

[daan]

If what Hamilton did was so dangerous, bunching the field up and decelerating when he shouldn't, why didn't anyone else run into the back of the car in front of them?