2019 Formula 1 Pirelli Grand Prix du CanadaFormula 1

[Tak[TEC]]

Bold statement. Got any proof of that?

Just to ensure you're not blind and can see proof above this post

 

[Riptide]

That's the notice that they intend to seek the right to appeal, it remains to be seen if they'll be granted it given that the penalty is un-appealable.

Yes they'can't appeal the steward's decision, but they can appeal the decision to review the offence itself [SR @ 38.1]. That is what the article attempts to state.

Enough views both sides already, so I'll just add that it's a sad way where F1 is heading - making motor sport a rule-sport instead of letting people just race as in the old days. Yes "rules are rules", but one can only argue that if rules are consistently applied, something that hardly takes place in F1.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I disagree. To me, Hamilton went off, should have lost a position, and squeezed Ricciardo in order not to. Thats gaining an advantage for going off track, just as many are claiming Vettel did also.
I also completely disagree with the “two corners later” thing. The Hamilton incident took place 50 feet after he cut the whole chicane. The Vettel incident took place 50 feet after he cut through the grass.

Following that argument to its natural conclusion Vettel should have been penalised yesterday.

I still don't think Vettel intentionally blocked, the whole thing was due to him making an uninentional mistake... but nonetheless he returned to the track and impeded another car. The judgement is in the harsh end of the envelope but it's literally correct.

 

[Veinz]

Vettel got robbed, what a joke. The race for the lead was so good up until they handed that out. This is one of the reasons why F1 is a shadow of it’s former self.

Not sure how anyone can call themselves a race fan and support this decision.

 

[Riptide]

Following that argument to its natural conclusion Vettel should have been penalised yesterday.

I still don't think Vettel intentionally blocked, the whole thing was due to him making an uninentional mistake... but nonetheless he returned to the track and impeded another car. The judgement is in the harsh end of the envelope but it's literally correct.

If your statement of "it's literally correct" is accepted, then there were quite a few other decisions that they've got literally wrong. [the proof are spread all over this thread and Sky News has a few more]. So either way, the stewards failed this race.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If your statement of "it's literally correct" is accepted, then there were quite a few other decisions that they've got literally wrong.

I agree. And it's difficult to see that Vettel didn't gain "a lasting advantage" when he returned to the delineated track. In most cases I think the team would have ordered a driver to let the following car through, particularly when it was already passing but then blocked by the return from departure. For what it's worth I think that's what the stewards should have ordered too.

 

[mustafur]

I don't think we should judge it like the Verstappen incident because of two reasons:

1: Hamilton wasn't along side Vettel when he come back on
2. Hamilton wasn't forced off track from it(sure that could be track related but I don't think there would of been room to do it anyway).

If Hamilton had some overlap it would be a much stronger case for a penalty.

 

[niky]

I disagree. To me, Hamilton went off, should have lost a position, and squeezed Ricciardo in order not to. Thats gaining an advantage for going off track, just as many are claiming Vettel did also.

It's not gaining an advantage. That only applies to overtakers. It's cutting track boundaries. Ad yes, both are guilty in the cases presented, but that's not what Seb was penalized for. (mind, again, I am of two minds about the penalty).

I also completely disagree with the “two corners later” thing. The Hamilton incident took place 50 feet after he cut the whole chicane. The Vettel incident took place 50 feet after he cut through the grass.

Watch it again:



Hamilton missed one of the two apexes. He came out before the second apex, so he didn't cut the whole chicane (which would have been a penalty), and Ricciardo was not close enough for a collision when he rejoined the track. Hamilton slowed down considerably because he made a conscious effort to not cut across the chicane completely, which is why he is nearly stopped as Ricciardo comes close. This is why there was no "unsafe rejoining" penalty for that.

And the squeeze after, that's naughty, but the stewards never penalize that. Hamilton and a number of other drivers have been using it for years because the stewards view it as a legitimate following of the racing line if you squeeze a guy to the outside on a corner exit. That Danny jinked from the left (0:10 seconds) to the right (0:12) before pulling up on the outside meant that he was not already alongside Lewis before the corner exit and couldn't necessarily demand that space.

It was NOT a nice move by Lewis, but he knew what he was doing. If he had squeezed Danny into the wall fifty meters later, he would have gotten a penalty.

Also, I never made any mention of Raikkonen and Verstappen; are you confused who you’re replying to?

Apologies, that was @wajdi1977 's post. We were discussing the videos he'd posted. And in the video, Max did indeed get a penalty.

1: Hamilton wasn't along side Vettel when he come back on

That's actually a good point pro-Vettel

 

[McLaren]

Been reading a lot of people would’ve been happy if the stewards told Vettel to give up the position to Lewis and then see if he could challenge Lewis for it.

But, iirc, there has to be proof Vettel gained an advantage when he went off for that specific ruling to be issued, and it doesn’t look like he does as he only jumps back on the gas once he has the car settled.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But, iirc, there has to be proof Vettel gained an advantage when he went off for that specific ruling to be issued, and it doesn’t look like he does as he only jumps back on the gas once he has the car settled.

If Vettel had corrected his slide two car-lengths from the wall then Hamilton would have driven through - he had a big speed advantage at that point. He didn't drive through because he was impeded by Vettel's returning car.

Vettel doesn't have to have intent in that situation, but either way Hamilton was impeded. Vettel had lost the advantage through the corner by departing and slowing enough for Hamilton to pass. His car then blocked Hamilton from passing and that's where you find the retained, lasting advantage. As I've already said I think Ferrari should have ordered him to let Hamilton past and that would have been the end of it. Their reluctance to do so (and they surely considered it) has cost them the place anyway.

Just in case you feel like I'm a Hamilton Fanboi... if Hamilton had done the same thing in front of Vettel I'd feel the same way. You don't get to make mistakes like that and forcibly keep your position.

 

[Liquid]

I'd love to know how today's stewards would have reacted at Dijon-Prenois; Jabouille takes the race but Villeneuve is given a time penalty that puts him behind Arnoux as well as a reprimand for blocking which makes his drive less meaningful.

 

[PzR Slim]

Just to ensure you're not blind and can see proof above this post

Proof that the only people who agree with the decision are fanboys? I don't see any proof of that. It was a blanket statement designed to mock anyone who held a different opinion to the poster and hence complete hyperbole. It would be impossible to prove the posters statement and was why I called them out on it.

 

[eran0004]

You can't penalize him unless you know for sure that he either did it intentionally, or could have avoided it.

The rules doesn’t say anything about intention in this case. If you gain any advantage when rejoining the track you can be penalised for it. Instead of blaming the stewards he could just accept that he made a mistake and that the mistake led to a violation of the rules.

 

[SestoScudo]

One word for this race.

ROBBERY

 

[PzR Slim]

The rules doesn’t say anything about intention in this case. If you gain any advantage when rejoining the track you can be penalised for it. Instead of blaming the stewards he could just accept that he made a mistake and that the mistake led to a violation of the rules.

This is the thing that most seem to be forgetting. Yes it was an incredibly tough decision by the stewards to penalise him. I could have very easily seen no penalty being given and I would have no issue with that either. However, Vettel made a mistake which ended up causing him to impede another driver and in such instances there is the possibility that a driver can be penalised. Unfortunately for Vettel the stewards decided this was one of those times. People are acting like Vettel is totally blameless and did nothing wrong. He yet again made another mistake and has paid for it.

 

[baldgye]

One word for this race.

ROBBERY

I can't help but read that word in a Monty Python esq voice in my head...


After reading the autosport piece on it, I wish the stewards had given us that footage during the race. That said (as a Hamilton fan) the penalty seems harsh. I can understand the decision, Lewis had to brake and get off the track to avoid Vettel rejoining, and if Vettel had rejoined in a more careful manner Lewis would have sailed past. Ultimately Vettel made the mistake and if he hadn't chopped Lewis, he would have finished second anyway. But I still think it was harsh.

With some luck this fires up Seb and we see a bit of a rebirth for him as he's struggled all season.

 

[Jimlaad43]

The way to look at it is simple. If Vettel had rejoined the same way but hadn't impeded Hamilton, what would have happened? Hamilton would have passed him. As Hamilton was unable to pass because of it, Vettel needed a penalty, be it a position swap or 5 seconds. They have all those bollards at the other chicanes with tarmac runoff for the same reason. Look at Grosjean in Spain where he had to go around a bollard 3 times in a row to avoid coming back on track dangerously and blocking it. Hamilton had to brake to avoid a crash, therefore Vettel was in the wrong because he held onto the position. It's amazing how many people can't understand this.

 

[mustafur]

The way to look at it is simple. If Vettel had rejoined the same way but hadn't impeded Hamilton, what would have happened? Hamilton would have passed him. As Hamilton was unable to pass because of it, Vettel needed a penalty, be it a position swap or 5 seconds. They have all those bollards at the other chicanes with tarmac runoff for the same reason. Look at Grosjean in Spain where he had to go around a bollard 3 times in a row to avoid coming back on track dangerously and blocking it. Hamilton had to brake to avoid a crash, therefore Vettel was in the wrong because he held onto the position. It's amazing how many people can't understand this.

That doesn't equal a penalty just from impeding a driver, as seen in the Ricciardo/Hamilton incident at Monaco, there is an allowed leeway, at least in precedent.

You can say but Ricciardo wasn't right behind Hamilton when he rejoined, but that is because Hamilton was able to get a bigger advantage from that cut then Vettel did, not only that but Ricciardo was much Closer to Hamilton then Hamilton was to Vettel when the cut was made.

 

[Sureboss]

The way to look at it is simple. If Vettel had rejoined the same way but hadn't impeded Hamilton, what would have happened? Hamilton would have passed him. As Hamilton was unable to pass because of it, Vettel needed a penalty, be it a position swap or 5 seconds. They have all those bollards at the other chicanes with tarmac runoff for the same reason. Look at Grosjean in Spain where he had to go around a bollard 3 times in a row to avoid coming back on track dangerously and blocking it. Hamilton had to brake to avoid a crash, therefore Vettel was in the wrong because he held onto the position. It's amazing how many people can't understand this.

I think there's this idea that because he had lost control of his car, it wasn't his fault that he almost caused another driver to crash.

Good point from Autosport @baldgye

 

[MansellsTash]

The way to look at it is simple. If Vettel had rejoined the same way but hadn't impeded Hamilton, what would have happened? Hamilton would have passed him. As Hamilton was unable to pass because of it, Vettel needed a penalty, be it a position swap or 5 seconds. They have all those bollards at the other chicanes with tarmac runoff for the same reason. Look at Grosjean in Spain where he had to go around a bollard 3 times in a row to avoid coming back on track dangerously and blocking it. Hamilton had to brake to avoid a crash, therefore Vettel was in the wrong because he held onto the position. It's amazing how many people can't understand this.

I'm not really sure why you've brought up the comparison of chicanes with bollards and large runoff areas when the chicane in question here is anything but....

 

[ShiftingGears]

That was a farcical decision. The rule is there for penalising drivers that regain control of their car, and then rejoin the track . Not for penalising the drivers who re-gain control of their car after they've rejoined.

Hamilton had to brake to avoid a crash, therefore Vettel was in the wrong because he held onto the position. It's amazing how many people can't understand this.

Whether Hamilton passed or not doesn't make the incident more or less 'unsafe'. It should not have been a factor in the stewards decision.

 

[Jimlaad43]

I'm not really sure why you've brought up the comparison of chicanes with bollards and large runoff areas when the chicane in question here is anything but....

Because it's the same rule regardless of the runoff. That's what nobody seems to understand

 

[AshenGraey]

The way to look at it is simple. If Vettel had rejoined the same way but hadn't impeded Hamilton, what would have happened? Hamilton would have passed him. As Hamilton was unable to pass because of it, Vettel needed a penalty, be it a position swap or 5 seconds. They have all those bollards at the other chicanes with tarmac runoff for the same reason. Look at Grosjean in Spain where he had to go around a bollard 3 times in a row to avoid coming back on track dangerously and blocking it. Hamilton had to brake to avoid a crash, therefore Vettel was in the wrong because he held onto the position. It's amazing how many people can't understand this.

After reading quite a few comments on other sites, it seems to me like a lot of people refuse to understand this because they either have a very deep hate for Hamilton, they can't stand to see yet another win for Mercedes and /or they are Vettel/Ferrari fanboys...JK

While I was rooting for Lewis to win, I think the penalty itself was pretty harsh. I get that Vettel made the mistake and from the looks of it, had he left Lewis a bit more space, he definitely would have lost the position but had I been one of the stewards, in a race like this, I would have let this one go as a racing incident or give him a warning or drop him down a position in the next race.

Up until this debacle, the racing was great, the anticipation and excitement was through the roof because it could have gone either way between the 2 of them but then by the time it was over, it felt like I watching a terrible soap opera. Maybe I'm in the minority for saying this but as a fan of F1, none of that drama was entertaining to me. Vettel storming off to the paddock, then went over to move the position board, Hamilton awkward move to show his sportsmanship, people booing at Hamilton even though he didn't do anything wrong and such...yeah just a terrible soap opera!

 

[Riptide]

The way to look at it is simple. If Vettel had rejoined the same way but hadn't impeded Hamilton, what would have happened? Hamilton would have passed him.

If that is the prevailing question, why then did the stewards not penalized Perez when he punted [Grosjean I think it was] when he punted the latter off the track. If Perez has not punted the other driver, he would not have been able to pass [and received no penalty]. Different facts, but same angle of argument.

For record I think the penalty was ridiculous, but much more for the steward's inconsistency during the race [and F1 overall] than the incident itself. It's things like this that stands at the root of declining interest in F1.

 

[zzz_pt]

Re-entered the track safely?

Yes. He made a mistake. If that mistake means letting someone past so you stay within the rules that's what you have to do. He made a mistake yet again and he's paid for it. Or does everyone think he should get a free pass after making the mistake?

So what happened was Vettel made yet another mistake and was punished for it. Simple as that.

Are you aware of the concept of race incident?

If the FIA wants to enforce their rulebook, they have to take out the grass from that (and every other) chicane. Vettel did a mistake but was fighting the lack of grip and oversteer of the car.

Had he joined in the dirty part of the track, he would probably crash.

I was surprised to see everyone from Sky F1 disagree with the 5 sec penalty. And they're all Lewis fans, obviously.

Hamilton didn't came close to make a move throughout the 70 laps, that's why this penalty looks unfair and excessive to most people.

Also, in similar situations (even when there's tarmac and no grass) penalties were not given in the past.

This is the type of BS that keeps fans away from F1. Racing is sometimes close and mistakes cab happen when cars are on the limit.

If you want a mistake free race, you'll get it probably in races where's no close fights for the win. That's crap IMO.

PS: about the unsafe reentry. This happens tons of times tgroughout the season at the back of the pack. No penalties most of the time, unless there's contact / accidents.

 

[baldgye]

Also, in similar situations (even when there's tarmac and no grass) penalties were not given in the past.

At every other chicane (that has concrete run-off) at Canada, the drivers are forced to go the long way round and given that Lewis was within half a second of him, Vettel would have lost the position had this happened at one of those chicanes.

 

[AshenGraey]

I just watched Nico Rosberg's analysis of the race on YouTube and I'm quite surprised that he actually agreed with the stewards on the penalty and even said that it was well deserved for Vettel. I find this interesting because I'm thinking if it was him in Vettel shoes, he would have done the exact same thing, so would Hamilton or any of the other drivers on the grid for that matter

 

[Riptide]

I just watched Nico Rosberg's analysis of the race on YouTube and I'm quite surprised that he actually agreed with the stewards on the penalty and even said that it was well deserved for Vettel. I find this interesting because I'm thinking if it was him in Vettel shoes, he would have done the exact same thing, so would Hamilton or any of the other drivers on the grid for that matter

No surprise there - he's X Mercedes

 

[baldgye]

This is the type of BS that keeps fans away from F1.

This is a silly thing to say. It's drama like this that causes people to get excited and invested in things. Vettel removing the P1 sign from in-front of Lewis' car could have been scripted it was so silly.

What keeps people from watching F1 is the lack of on-track action and a serious lack of availability. Even F1's on-demand subscription service has been incapable of providing people with consistent access to race weekends.

 

[zzz_pt]

At every other chicane (that has concrete run-off) at Canada, the drivers are forced to go the long way round and given that Lewis was within half a second of him, Vettel would have lost the position had this happened at one of those chicanes.

I'm talking about situations where the cars rejoin and come close to contact out contact. Not cases where there's a run off. But even then, you can see plenty of times the driver in front missing the breaking zone and keep going because they don't get an advantage / overtake someone else.

Also, it's silly in your opinion. I doubt F1 fans like this type of BS, where racing gets second place behind over zealous / unfair FIA stewardship. Maybe fans who like soap operas like it. I don't and I think the majority of fans of F1 don't like that either.