F1 Montreal GP: June 7-9, 2019

Let me just repost my previous comment since it seems some of you missed the point regarding that infamous Monaco 2016 incident:

crimsonhawk23 said:Back in Monaco 2016, Lewis Hamilton got back on track and Daniel Ricciardo was still trailing significantly behind him.

During Formula 1 Canada in 2019, Sebastian Vettel rejoined the track ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HAMILTON'S CAR, not IN FRONT OF him like what happened previously.



I realize people enjoy playing expert without actually checking the regulations—which are public on formula1.com—but Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019 only share the fact that they were both Formula 1 races. Canada was a clear penalty situation; Monaco wasn't. Maybe try reading the rules and looking closer.

Also, it’s worth remembering that 5 seconds is the smallest possible penalty in Formula 1. They couldn't penalize Sebastian Vettel with anything less because nothing less exists. And the situation definitely warranted a penalty, as Jolyon Palmer explained and argued quite clearly:

crimsonhawk23 said:Jolyon Palmer column: Why Sebastian Vettel deserved his penalty

By the letter of the law, Vettel was guilty.

He either crowded another driver off the circuit - OFF The Circuit - Hamilton into The wall on The EXIT of Turn Four, to the point where the Mercedes-Benz driver had to anchor on the brakes to avoid a collision.

Or, as his defence said, his natural momentum took him across the full width of the circuit. But in that case he is guilty of rejoining the circuit in an unsafe manner, as he was not in full control of his car, to the extent that he ran Hamilton OFF The Road in an unsafe manner.
One of these scenarios has to be correct.

If he was forced to run all the way into Hamilton, that's not safe. If he wasn't, then he deliberately did it, and that's not fair and deserves a penalty.

You can't have it both ways, and you need to have it both ways to avoid the penalty here.

Besides, for everyone claiming Vettel shouldn't have been penalized here, I suppose you should ask yourselves if you'd feel the same if Romain Grosjean or, heaven forbid, Max Verstappen were in that exact spot. You don't even need to answer, because we all know the truth. Though, I imagine there would be plenty of shouting about how it should have been a race ban and how a 5-second penalty is a joke for such a "horrific crime."

This is quite interesting. It seems you find Jolyon Palmer's analysis very convenient right now, as you keep repeating it like a parrot, yet when Palmer was critiquing Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes-Benz, your stance was the complete opposite.
It isn't necessarily a problem that a penalty exists or that the same penalty is handed out to a driver. The issue lies in the lack of consistency. At this race, we see a penalty, but at the next one, it’s dismissed as a "racing incident."

In previous races, drivers have been penalized for certain actions, while in others, they weren't penalized for the exact same thing. That is arguably the biggest problem in Formula 1. You never know when a penalty will be issued and when it won't. Furthermore, the FIA and its stewards always seem to rely on mysterious footage and data that nobody else gets to see. If their decisions during a specific race are debatable, then they should release those clips and data points so the debate can actually be settled. As it stands, everyone is expected to simply take their word for it, which is incredibly difficult given how much the penalty system seems to shift from one race to the next.

And I am certainly not the only one who believes they need to be more transparent. Even Ross Brawn has admitted as much.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...brawn-11616176

Nicole Taylor said:This is quite interesting. It seems like you’re finding Palmer's analysis particularly appealing—you're repeating it constantly, almost like a parrot, I guess.

It doesn't really suit you—mostly because you aren't exactly an expert when it comes to Formula 1. But that’s fine, I suppose; one learns as long as they're still breathing.

Nicole Taylor said:Back when Jolyon Palmer was writing his critiques against Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes-Benz—well, things were viewed in a completely different light then, I guess.

It isn't exactly right to lie the way you're doing here—I guess. Maybe try backing up your claims with a link next time (not that you actually can, since it seems like you're just making things up).

Nicole Taylor said:It isn't really about the penalty itself—that's fine—but rather how inconsistent it all feels. One race they hand out a penalty, then the next one it’s just brushed off as a "racing incident." I guess it's just hard to call.

It seems to be remarkably consistent—I guess.

Nicole Taylor said:In some races, you get hit with penalties, while in others—for seemingly the exact same thing—you don't. I guess that’s really the core issue with Formula 1. You never quite know when a penalty is coming or when it isn't. On top of that, the FIA and their stewards always seem to have these mysterious clips and data sets that nobody else gets to see—except them. If their decisions at a race are actually debatable, maybe they should just share those recordings and data points; then we could actually settle the debate.

It seems like the FIA’s primary occupation is just trying to convince the folks over on Reddit that something is actually true.

Unfortunately, I don't have the spare time to hunt down specific links on Reddit, given my other responsibilities. As for your claim that this is happening constantly, that seems to be a perspective held only by you. Based on my conversations with people outside this community and my reading of the international media regarding Formula 1, the consensus is that it isn't a constant occurrence. It’s widely recognized as such.

Regarding the insults—calling someone ignorant or accusing them of lying—I would kindly ask you to maintain a level of decorum. Please refrain from personal attacks; I make it a point never to insult anyone, and I certainly don't intend to insult you.
As for my knowledge of Formula 1, I have been following the sport for over 25 years. If you have any further questions regarding my experience with motorsports, feel free to ask.

Nicole Taylor said:I don't really have the bandwidth to hunt down links across the forum right now—too many other things on my plate, I guess.

I don't have the time to dig through old threads for links—but even with everything else going on, I recall that I wasn't exactly a fan of Palmer's analysis when he was taking aim at Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes-Benz. It was... interesting, to say the least. 👍

Nicole Taylor said:Maybe you're the only one who thinks it's consistent—I mean, talking to people outside of Reddit and keeping up with the global F1 media, everyone seems to agree that it's anything but. It's pretty much common knowledge at this point.

I guess you're the only one who thinks that's common knowledge—maybe.

Nicole Taylor said:Regarding the insults—the "clueless" comments and accusations of lying—I’d kindly ask you to mind your manners. I don't believe in personal attacks, and I certainly wouldn't want to start one with you.

Accusing someone of something without any actual proof—well, I guess that’s just lying, not an insult.

Nicole Taylor said:As far as my knowledge—or lack thereof—regarding Formula 1 goes, I’ve been following the sport for over 25 years now. If you're curious about anything else regarding my experience with motorsports, I guess you can feel free to ask.

Ah—those same old arguments, year after year—I guess they just never change. 😁 It’s only logical that you know more about Formula 1 than, say, Max Verstappen or Charles Leclerc—since you've likely been following the sport longer than those two have even been around—and I suppose even Daniel Ricciardo wouldn't stand much of a chance in a comparison with you. 👍

Since it seems impossible to have a productive conversation with you, I’ll say goodbye.

I have no interest in engaging with provocations, nor will I respond to them.

Nicole Taylor said:Since you aren't capable of having a civil conversation, I'm out.

I don't respond to provocations—nor do I care for them, really.

🤣

Coming from someone who actually made this exact provocation earlier:

Nicole Taylor said:You seem to love Palmer's analysis so much that you're repeating it like a parrot—yet when Palmer was critical of Hamilton and Mercedes, you were suddenly all for the opposite view.

But when I asked for a link proving my previous statements didn't align with Palmer, he couldn't provide one—probably because he's busy and can't be expected to 🤣 🤣

😵

At the end of the day, Vettel got penalized, and that’s that. Period. Personally, I don't think these kinds of nonsensical penalties should even exist.
In my view, Vettel earned that win and he deserved to take it.

Whether Vettel was intentionally veering right to block or if Hamilton was deliberately trying to force an "I'm not going in there" situation is anyone's guess.

All I know for certain is that Vettel is now trailing by a massive 62 points, and had he actually secured the victory, that gap would be significantly smaller.

Ad Acta.

The governing bodies need to implement rules immediately so that these ambiguous situations—where it's nearly impossible to pin down who is at fault—don't result in such arbitrary punishments.

Sebastian Vettel might have actually pulled off a win despite the penalty—mostly because he was sitting 3.3s ahead of Lewis Hamilton and spent the rest of the race complaining over the radio about how unfair everything was—instead of just keeping his head down and driving his heart out to finish strong, which is probably what Hamilton would have done.

mellowtiger83 said:All I know is Sebastian Vettel is trailing by a massive 62 points, and he should’ve been way closer if he actually had the win.

A massive 62 or a "tiny" 55? It's the same damn gap.😉
The point isn't the math; the point is the stewards completely screwed up the finish of the race with that call...

Anyway, here's what JV is rambling about:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/v...nada/4467183/?

I have no clue what he's getting at regarding Ricco. I didn't catch that part—my F1 TV app kept crashing on me. 😠

crimsonhawk23 said:Sebastian Vettel probably could've pulled off the win even with the penalty. He was sitting 3.3 seconds ahead of Lewis Hamilton, but instead of just putting his head down and driving like a maniac to secure the win—which is what Lewis would've done—he spent the rest of the race whining over the radio about how unfair the penalty was.

Oh yeah, totally...
Mercedes-Benz was the faster car compared to Ferrari, plus Vettel was stuck on older tires that were basically shot by then...

His chances of actually being able to nabildati a lead were basically zero...

mellowtiger83 said:Look, Vettel got penalized, and that's the end of the story. Personally, I don't think these kinds of silly penalties should even exist.
In my eyes, Vettel deserved that win and should have taken it.

Did Vettel intentionally move right to block? Did Lewis Hamilton intentionally try to force a situation where he wouldn't be let in?

All I know is that Vettel is now trailing by a massive 62 points, and if he had won, that gap would be much smaller.

Ad Acta.

They urgently need to establish rules so that situations where it's hard to pinpoint who's at fault aren't penalized.

I think if they did that, things would never settle down. There would always be an uproar, and you'd never know which side people would take.

To me, everyone needs to be penalized—from the world champions down to the backmarkers. Does it matter if it's Mercedes or even Michael Schumacher making a sudden comeback? It shouldn't. Only a policy like that ensures drivers don't just decide on a whim to try blocking someone, thinking they might get away with it.

A lot of people will jump on this and say it kills the racing and the passion, or whatever else. That's simply not true. A driver who knows they could face consequences won't try to gain an advantage that way; they'll stick to the rules on track instead. And if they do, fans from all sides won't be disappointed in the sport itself, just in a driver showing they aren't perfect. I believe that's the only fair way. Vettel made a mistake by going off track here; everything else happened as a result. Ad Acta

A great example of this is VAR in soccer. Did it kill the game? Despite all the loud complaints, matches are still intense. We all just wait a moment while the ref checks with the others, and then it's over. In a few years, people will forget how it felt to play without VAR.

P.S. I'm being sincere here. If they penalize the Mercedes driver for the exact same thing tomorrow, then fine. That way, a few drivers will realize that their split-second decisions actually carry weight.

crimsonhawk23 said:Honestly, Vettel probably could've pulled off the win even with the penalty. He was sitting 3.3 seconds ahead of Hamilton, but instead of just putting his head down and driving like a beast to make up ground—which is what someone like Hamilton would've done—he spent the rest of the race whining on the radio about how unfair the call was.

No way in hell Vettel could have nabildati a 5+ second gap.

wiredfalcon2 said:There is absolutely no way Vettel could have built up a lead of more than five seconds.

He actually managed to build a three-second gap—until they hit him with that penalty.

That’s just it. He had a 3.3-second gap—once he heard about the penalty, he spent the rest of the race complaining over the radio instead of actually driving.

gentlemoose57 said:He bulked up to 3rd. Then they hit him with the penalty.

Then Lewis Hamilton just floored it after cooling those brakes down and it was lights out for the kid.

Nicholas Newman2 said:Vettel messed up by going wide, everything else was just a chain reaction. Ad Acta

P.s. Seriously though. If they penalize the Mercedes-Benz driver for this tomorrow, fine. But if they go after all five of them, nobody’s going to care about making split-second decisions anymore.

Yeah, he went off track...

But the real question is how much control he actually had versus how much he was intentionally blocking Lewis Hamilton...
If he didn't have control, then what is this?
A penalty for going off, a penalty because Hamilton squeezed next to you (instead of passing on the left), or a penalty for what exactly?

How on earth can you penalize someone for an "unsafe reentry" if they aren't even in control of the car and it's basically drifting back onto the track on its own after a spin?

Maybe if you're convinced it was intentional—that the slide was staged and the guy was just being a villain trying to pin poor, terrified Hamilton against the wall...
Even if you were sure, what's the point of a penalty for something you can't actually prove? Intent is hard to nail down. Sure, a steward might get a feeling, but absolute proof? That's a tall order.

And handing out a penalty just for going off track isn't right either. Otherwise, they'd be penalizing everyone who goes wide, regardless of whether Hamilton is there or not.

What's actually funny is this Ferrari whining (and it's not just them, it's every team...).
Look, Ferrari cried foul last time when Max pushed Kimi out in a similar way (even though Max used the run-off area correctly...), so now they're getting hit by the very precedent they begged for.
And yeah, the penalty is technically fine under the rules—rules that were basically brought in because Ferrari kept complaining. 😁

It's not even the first time. As far as I recall, Vettel got penalized for moving under braking before, and those rules also gained teeth because Ferrari wouldn't stop complaining about Max doing it.

gentlemoose57 said:He had 3. Then they told him about the penalty.

crimsonhawk23 said:Exactly. He was at 3.3, heard about the penalty, and just spent the rest of the race whining over the radio instead of actually driving.

He didn't "build up" anything. Lewis Hamilton just lost his mind during the race...
☕

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?p...wis%20Hamilton
Sebastian Vettel's times are basically identical. It’s Hamilton who dropped a second off his normal pace on lap 57...

Check the timing data on Live Timing if you want things to make sense. Stop making up fairy tales and reading tea leaves.

Anyway, here’s some stuff I pulled from Hulkenberg's radio clips:
- Bottas isn't your target
- Told him multiple times to back off because he needs to save fuel
- Repeated instructions to slow down and cool those brakes
- Hulk starts complaining about the gearbox, saying it’s losing that seamless feel and might just quit on him any second (they try to fix it via steering wheel settings, and after a few tries, they actually manage to steady things out)
- Once he hits the DRS zone 13 laps before the end, it’s obvious he’s got the pace and better traction—Ricciardo is clearly sliding out of the corners—so he tells his engineer his tires feel great. But instead of letting him go, the guy just repeats "hold position" twice, then follows up with "cool the car" four different times, which sounds like total bullshit given the next message is telling him to stay 2 seconds behind Dani, not 0.5. After a few more laps and two more warnings, he finally pulls more than 2 seconds ahead
- At the end, his engineer tells him he did a great job, even though that had to be infuriating... then he adds that Hamilton passed Vettel on the last lap before correcting himself to say Vettel had a penalty, but he didn't catch it live.

Why does any of this matter? Just for the people who actually want to dig deeper. From the outside, you don't see this stuff. And Hulk was slowed down three separate times by his own engineer during the race... I'm not saying he definitely would've cleared Ricciardo, but he was robbed of the chance. Then some commentator who saw the two of them on screen for maybe five seconds will call it a "routine victory for Ricciardo over his teammate." The truth is, it was anything but routine..

stormybadger8 said:He went off track...

The real issue here is how much of that was actually losing control versus intentionally cutting off Lewis Hamilton...
If he wasn't in control, then what exactly is this penalty for?
Is it for going off, for Hamilton being right there (instead of passing on the left), or what specifically?

How on earth can you penalize someone for an unsafe reentry if they aren't even in control of the car and it just slides back onto the track essentially on its own after spinning out?

Maybe if you're convinced it was intentional—that the slide was staged and he was just trying to pin a terrified Hamilton against the wall...
But even if you were certain, what’s the point of a penalty for something you can't truly prove? Intent is incredibly hard to establish. A steward might get the impression, sure, but absolute proof? That's a tall order...

And handing out a penalty just for going off track isn't right either. Otherwise, they'd have to penalize everyone who leaves the track, regardless of whether Hamilton is nearby or not...

What's interesting, though, is all this complaining from Ferrari (and not just them, but every other team too)
Because look, the last time Ferrari was whining about this was when Max pushed Kimi out in a similar fashion (even though Max had a runoff area he chose not to use)... so now they're getting hit by the very precedent they called for...
And yeah, the penalty is perfectly fine according to the rules—rules that were basically implemented because Ferrari asked for them. 😁

And if I remember correctly, this isn't the first time. Vettel once got penalized for moving under braking, and that rule also gained teeth after Ferrari complained about Max doing it...

You've laid that out nicely, but you're forgetting that the stewards have access to way more data regarding the incident than just the live timing we see 😉.

And that whole bit about needing 100% proof is a bit much. If you apply that logic, you could argue there's no proof God exists, since no one has actually seen Him, right?

Whoops, hold on, let's not take this to unrealistic heights or sink the theory of evolution too. It comes down to the same thing: when you demand empirical evidence for everything, nobody has it. You can't run a lab test on something that takes millions of years to manifest.

So, stormybadger8, either start a new New age or admit you're just grasping at straws.

Later