Alfa Romeo Forums banner

221 - 240 of 464 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,897 Posts
Yes, they are using the rules I mentioned about safety when you return to track after an excursion.

Here the ruling from the stewards(judges).

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.vettels-canada-penalty-the-stewards-decision-in-full.LgUCvccAD1MrhGG6oYkZs.html

Also Ferrari is appealing in order to put light on their arguments about the incident.

About Vettels behaviour after the race in the winners circle, it could happen he could be fined, because that is not the way!

Undoubtedly Vettel made a mistake when he went off the track and Hamilton also said he was stressing Vettel from behind because he counted on that Vettel eventually would make a mistake. Its not easy to have full concentration forward while also countering on oppsition who tries to overtake from behind. This is racing and eventually some make mistakes in the heat of it!
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,966 Posts
Vettel technically violated the re-entry rule and nearly took out Hamilton. I wouldn't have penalized it, though, because (as others have noted) he had no control on grass and couldn't have done anything different once he made the initial error.

But the idea that Hamilton "blew it" or somehow made a wrong move is absurd -- that assumes he's clairvoyant. He saw Vettel go off and he took the corner perfectly and maintained the racing line until Vettel rejoined and nearly shoved him into the wall. Just exactly what else was he supposed to do -- at racing speed?

Sorry, but you can't argue (as I do, too) that Vettel should not have been penalized because he had no control once he left the track and ended up on the grass, and then turn around and blame Hamilton for the fact that he had no control how and where Vettel ended up.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,721 Posts
After watching a replay, it was just racing. No penalty was required.

The penalty denied everybody of an exciting battle because Lewis didn't have to pass to win.

I do believe Lewis would probably have won without the penalty anyway, he was right there waiting to pounce, but those final laps would have made F1 great again.
Pete
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,978 Posts
Yup, as I said, I wouldn't have minded Vettel winning, but I think the odds of that happening were fairly low, the way the race was going. Hamilton could have probably passed Vettel at some point in the corners, and Vettel would then pass Hamilton on the straight. Hamilton would have to make up enough time in the curvy sections in order to stay ahead at the end of the straights. Hamilton did mention that he couldn't match the Ferrari on the straights, and that particular track seems to favor that, passing in the curves being perhaps more difficult in comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,897 Posts

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
296 Posts
There was a real open wheel race going on this weekend in North America. In a place we call Texas in a series we call IndyCar.

Exiting and suspenseful racing without petty protests and penalties. All this at 215 mph + average laps.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
267 Posts
There was a real open wheel race going on this weekend in North America. In a place we call Texas in a series we call IndyCar.

Exiting and suspenseful racing without petty protests and penalties. All this at 215 mph + average laps.
While I agree with what you said, F1 is a sickness - an addiction - for those of us who have been watching it and covering it for the past 50 years. Personally, I just can't not watch, even though I am more often disappointed than excited.

There is something to be said for a spec race series, like IndyCar, but there's also an attraction to a series with less commonality among the racecars. Still, that individuality leads to dominance - see the history of CanAm.

I was out of town and recorded Montreal. I like IndyCar, and I guess I could have recorded TX, but I'm just not that big a fan or ovals.

So much more I could say, but that's enough for now.

Mike
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
296 Posts
I agree that it's hard NOT to watch F1. I've followed it on on off since 1962 and the attraction of the history and the fact that some of the classic tracks are still more or less intact has a very strong pull for those of us "of a certain age."

Essentially the top two or three F1 teams create their own "spec series" when you consider the gulf between them and the mid-pack.

I disliked ovals for a very long time but as I began to study the form and it's intricacies my attitude changed to absolute awe at the precision of the engineering needed, not to mention the ability and amazing bravery of the best drivers.

I'll likely always watch F1, but mostly for the overall spectacle rather than the contest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Here is the quote from the stewards:

Reason: The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

The issue is whether the Ferrari had control when reentering the circuit. If he had control, then he could "force car 44 off track." Looking at the slow motion on reentry, Vettel's steering wheel is to the right, toward the outer wall. How could that be? Well, when the front wheels of car 5 hit the tarmac, with the rears still on the grass, Vettel would have had oversteer and the steering to the right was obviously an attempt to correct before running out of room and hitting the wall. When the rears gained traction on the tarmac, Vettel managed (just) to gather it all up and continue, as the steering wheel and front wheels indicate.

So, Vettel did not violate the intent of the rule in question, because he did not "force" anyone anywhere with intent. He was trying to save the car. Had he failed and hit the wall, taking both himself and another car out, that would not be a penalty, but a racing incident due to a crash. Forcing another car off track implies either intent or incompetence. Vettel had neither. He was trying to save the car on a narrow track with no runoff.

2 cents spent.....

Stephen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
For what it's worth, my reading was that it showed Vettels racing instinct cutting in and saving his lead - which is what you'd want to see.

Yes there was a little kick of oversteer when he first rejoined the track but the final few metres of movement to the right was about closing the gap on Hamilton and more importantly for him trying to maximise his acceleration down the straight. The Hamilton of a few years ago would have kept his foot in and forced the issue - probably to an accident.

Vettel lost it over the grass but when he came back on he had a choice of keeping or moving to the left to leave Hamilton room on the right (which would have meant losing speed on the straight and losing first place), or closing off that gap. He was trying to maintain his position so closed it off, at which point he was going substantially slower than the Merc, forcing a big braking moment.

The Merc was obviously faster and had been for the 30 or so laps he had been on Vettels tail. Nice to see that under new Aero rules he could maintain that close position for so long without excessive downforce loss. On last years rules cars were struggling to get within 2 seconds of the car in front.

Good also to see the Red cars being more competitive. I wonder if Leclerc got the call not to go too fast at the end to avoid Vettel losing second. But overall I think the Merc was the faster package that day, on that track with that driver and deserved to win. And I think the penalty was fairly applied. And a final thought is if the penalty was not applied we would be rewarding a mistake, which is generally not good.

Hope it becomes more competitive because if the points gaps too large halfway thru season Ferrari may just focus on 2020 development which will mean a procession.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,978 Posts
"He was trying to save the car. Had he failed and hit the wall, taking both himself and another car out, that would not be a penalty, but a racing incident due to a crash. Forcing another car off track implies either intent or incompetence. Vettel had neither. He was trying to save the car on a narrow track with no runoff."

Some of us also looked at the incident, including several different viewpoints and in slow motion, and feel that Vettel had the car under control when he got all four tires back on the track, as indicated by the steering wheel and front tire alignment. Any subsequent controlled movement to the right, as seen in the overhead shots, was suggesting that it was an attempt to keep Hamilton from passing.

That's certainly how the Stewards saw it, and even Hamilton mentioned that he would have done the same, probably getting a 5 second penalty as Vettel did, and he was there.

However, if Ferrari can figure out why their cars are not all that competitive on most tracks other than ones which favor high speed on the straights, they will begin to give Mercedes more trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderSlam5

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Vettel lost it over the grass but when he came back on he had a choice of keeping or moving to the left to leave Hamilton room on the right (which would have meant losing speed on the straight and losing first place), or closing off that gap. He was trying to maintain his position so closed it off, at which point he was going substantially slower than the Merc, forcing a big braking moment.

The Merc was obviously faster and had been for the 30 or so laps he had been on Vettels tail.



Look, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I like to see knife-edge racing, and we saw that in Canada from two fine drivers. I am speaking as one who has raced for a long time, and the assumption in your first sentence is that Vettel had a "choice of keeping (?) or moving to the left" simply cannot be sustained, in my experience. Now, if you look at the steering wheel and front tires, upon reentering the tarmac, the front tires gain traction relative to the rears, which are still on the (slippery) grass. There is instant oversteer, which is why Vettel's steering wheel goes to the right hard, just a few meters from the outside wall at over 160 kph. The only reason for doing that is to attempt to save the car. That was the "choice" and the only one available in hundredths of a second. I promise that when you are out of shape and about to hit the wall, defending a position is not at the top of your priority list.

Ferrari's decision to appeal the decision will undoubtedly include submission of the data traces to the stewards. That would show who's really correct. The traces would include the yaw rate, steering wheel angle, velocity, and RPM/throttle traces. Overlaying these will tell the entire story. Simply, when a car is oversteering on exit on a narrow circuit with no runoff, the driver's options are severely limited. Canada is not Silverstone or Bahrain, where a driver can bail out and live to attack again. My questions are (1) whether the appeal will be listened to objectively by the FIA, and (2) whether Vettel incurred any other penalties after the race when he entered parc ferme without his helmet/HANS and may not have weighed.


Finally, I agree that the Mercedes was a bit quicker than the Ferrari. But that is irrelevant in racing. Many times I was behind in a faster package and could not get by, because the driver ahead knew how to defend. I do not believe Vettel, in those few hundredths of a second, was defending against anything except saving a big hit on the outside wall, regardless of who was behind him.


Stephen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Some of us also looked at the incident, including several different viewpoints and in slow motion, and feel that Vettel had the car under control when he got all four tires back on the track, as indicated by the steering wheel and front tire alignment. Any subsequent controlled movement to the right, as seen in the overhead shots, was suggesting that it was an attempt to keep Hamilton from passing.


The data traces will reveal a more complete picture upon Ferrari's appeal of the stewards' decision. At the moment, none of us have any more information than anyone else. I just know what it feels like to be oversteering into a wall, and the very last thing I was thinking about was keeping my position. The intent of the rules was, in my view, not made for this incident, and the driver/TV commentators were all in agreement with that view, in the telecast.

Race stewards, in my own experience, can be a fickle bunch. They sometimes fancy themselves as knowledgeable racers, but often they are bureaucrats who lack actual racing experience. That's one reason why the FIA added an actual experienced racing driver as a steward at each F1 event. I personally think the majority of stewards should have actual experience and at least an "B+" FIA license. Anyone can take a rule and make a decision. It takes wisdom born of experience to wisely apply them correctly.


Stephen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
One more thing regarding stewards....

Everyone here will probably recall the 'static' decision to disqualify Hunt's McLaren in 1976 after the Spanish GP. His McLaren was too wide by an insignificant, tiny, but measureable amount. But legal is legal, and Hunt was disqualified. That decision was later reversed, to the immense displeasure of Ferrari, in a close points race for the championship.

Which decision was the correct one? This is more 'black and white,' as it was a simple scrutineering post-race measurement. People still argue about that to this day. Do you blindly apply the rule, or recognize the intent of the rule and decide accordingly?

I point this out not to apply it as a parallel to Canada, but to note that even simple decisions are not always simple.

Stephen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,897 Posts
This is why Vettel was penalized: He returned to track in an unsafe manner for those on the track, and also he deliberately drifted wide after he had regained control of his car, in order to hinder Hamilton to overtake him. Thats it, FIA has the final word, lets wait for that!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/143996/vettel-steering-inputs-key-to-fia-penalty-decision

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/144005/penalty-fully-deserved-for-vettel--nico-rosberg?cx_testId=23&cx_testVariant=cx_3&cx_artPos=3#cxrecs_s
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,721 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
Is there an English version?
Pete

What was there with the hydraulic system?
The victory of Lewis Hamilton in Montreal hung by a thread. He needed the penalty against Sebastian Vettel and also a bit of luck. Mercedes had to shiver for three hours after the race.
The GP Canada had an aftermath for Mercedes. While the experts in the paddock were talking hotly about whether Sebastian Vettel's five-second penalty was justified, the technical commissioners withdrew the winning car after a routine check. Mercedes had to tremble for his victory for three hours.

The Corpus Delicti, which was examined by the FIA ​​technicians, was in two copies on a table. It was about the hydraulic system of the drive unit from the car with the starting number 44. On the one hand, the hydraulic circuit, which the mechanics had expanded on the morning of the race day. On the other side of the newly built.
Different specification, same function
The rules require that both parts of the specification and function be at least similar. If that had not been the case, Hamilton would have had to start from the pit lane. Had that been discovered after the race, a disqualification would have threatened.

At 18.44 clock local time then came the all clear. In the FIA ​​investigation report, "The exchanged hydraulic system of the drive unit from the car with the starting number 44 is in accordance with article 34.2 of the 2019 sports law."

But it was not that easy. Apparently it was not exactly an identical specification in detail. The FIA ​​specialists Mercedes could not prove that the newly installed hydraulic system does something different than the removed version. And that's what it's all about.

Was the radio message to Hamilton allowed?

Renault discovered another irregularity. Lewis Hamilton informed his engineers in the formation round that the Antistall system was activated at the start attempt. This usually disconnects the clutch to prevent the engine from stalling when it drops below a certain speed.

Hamilton then asked twice concerned at the command post, whether his car is all right. The engineers gave their driver just before the drive to the starting place then the all-clear. "No Lewis, you have no problem."

Renault Operations Manager Alan Permane believes that this radio message in the formation round may be in breach of the rules. The Technical Directive 11 of 2017 prohibits certain instructions from the engineers to the driver. "We think the answer to Hamilton falls under it."

But at Mercedes, they knew that passing on certain information could cause problems. As at Nico Rosberg 2016 in Silverstone, which helped the engineers over the radio to solve a transmission problem in the ****pit. Rosberg lost the penalty with a 10-second penalty.

As a precaution, the command post at the race control asked if anyone could tell Hamilton that everything was alright with the car. The FIA ​​gave the green light and the radio message reached the ****pit of the titlist just in time for the start.
My Chromebook opens a window that asks if you want the page translated :nerd:
 
221 - 240 of 464 Posts
Top