collapse

* Welcome

Welcome to GPWizard F1 Forum!

GPWizard is the friendliest F1 forum you'll find anywhere. You have a host of new like-minded friends waiting to welcome you.

So what are you waiting for? Becoming a member is easy and free! Take a couple seconds out of your day and register now. We guarantee, you wont be sorry you did.

Click Here to become a full Member for Free

* User Info

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Newsletter

GPWizard F1 Forum Newsletter Email address:
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly

* Grid Game Deadlines

Qualifying

Race

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • John S: Hey! Anyone else notice the huge number of guests on the site today - Wow!!  :yahoo:
    December 03, 2019, 08:38:00 PM
  • Wizzo: Please note: Japanese qualifying times have been updated.
    October 11, 2019, 02:05:42 PM
  • Scott: I'll be in chat for a change...hope some others will make it too.
    September 07, 2019, 08:58:16 PM
  • cosworth151: This Sunday is Mothers Day here in the States. I'll be helping with the free breakfast we do at our Amvets Post every M's Day, so I'll be popping in and out of the Chat Room
    May 10, 2019, 03:57:04 PM
  • Wizzo: Mothers day here in the UK so I will be absent in the chat room today. Have fun!
    March 31, 2019, 10:47:48 AM
  • Jericoke: For newcomers to GPWizard, make sure you check out the live chat during the race!  It's the best way to turn a dull race into a great time, and the cherry on top of a great race!  (I won't be able to attend Aussie though)
    March 15, 2019, 07:48:58 PM
  • Wizzo: The 2019 Grid Game is now open. Please check out the new rules before entering.
    February 17, 2019, 04:56:33 PM
  • John S: Glad the site is back online, we don't know how much we like it til it's gone. Thanks Wizzo.
    February 02, 2019, 09:19:33 PM
  • Calman: Glad to see you back online Wizzo.  Did the issue point to a corrupted MySQL Data Table?
    February 02, 2019, 08:53:13 PM
  • Wizzo: I apologise for the downtime. Normal service has been resumed.
    February 02, 2019, 07:53:12 PM
  • Calman: Looks like the forum is experiencing Database/Server Issues! ... will check in later tonight.
    February 01, 2019, 01:11:41 AM
  • Calman: Thanks for getting back to me on that Wizzo ... I'll look at my donations when it's re-activated, thanks!
    December 14, 2018, 09:06:39 PM
  • Wizzo: No its not your imagination Cal. This option has been disabled for the time being.
    December 14, 2018, 03:50:09 PM
  • Calman: Is it my imagination, or has the "Shop" dropdown option disappeared from the navigation bar at the top of the forum?
    December 13, 2018, 07:59:13 PM
  • Wizzo: Thanks for letting me know. If anyone sees this issue again then please PM me.
    October 27, 2018, 10:19:33 AM
  • lkjohnson1950: OK, ot was alittle longer than 10 hours. Had problem 8 PM 10/24, was gone at 3:30 10/25.
    October 26, 2018, 03:53:12 PM
  • lkjohnson1950: It was working fine by yesterday PM, about 10 hours after I first got it.
    October 26, 2018, 03:48:36 PM
  • Wizzo: I cannot recreate the error that you are seeing but I have replaced the file that would cause the error. Please try again and let me know how you get on.
    October 26, 2018, 12:13:28 PM
  • Wizzo: I'm looking into this at the moment. Thanks
    October 26, 2018, 11:50:19 AM
  • lkjohnson1950: Hey Wiz, when I try to post a new topic or reply to an old one, I get a screen that says parse error.
    October 25, 2018, 04:12:09 AM

* Who's Online

  • Dot Guests: 160
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 1
  • Dot Users Online:

* Top Posters

cosworth151 cosworth151
15232 Posts
Scott Scott
13871 Posts
Dare Dare
12318 Posts
John S John S
10092 Posts
Ian Ian
9679 Posts

* IntentsGP Advert

pre-erected f1 camping & glamping with intentsGP

Author Topic: Correct penalty, wrong reason  (Read 1694 times)

Offline monty

  • Triple World Champion
  • ***
  • Date Registered: May 2006
  • Location: UK
  • Posts: 1469
  • 5000 credits
  • View Inventory
  • Send Money To monty
  • Iím a cynical pessimistÖ.rarely disappointed!
Correct penalty, wrong reason
« on: June 10, 2019, 10:36:54 AM »
  • Publish
  • I may be in the minority but I agreed with Seb getting a penalty - but not for unsafe re-entry. He cut the corner and gained an advantage. Clearly Hamilton would overtaken if Vettel hadnít blocked him. He didnít give up the place so he deserved a penalty. I canít understand why there was so much uproar



    Online rmassart

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #1 on: June 10, 2019, 11:09:53 AM »
  • Publish
  • I fully agree with you.  Vettel's comment "where should I have gone" was a load of rubbish. He's a four time world champion, still one of the best on the grid and knew exactly where he was, where Hamilton was and how to prevent Hamilton from passing him and blatantly blocked him such that Hamilton had to hit the brakes.

    Maybe there should be a rule that if you leave the track due to an error of your own you need to let the guy behind you pass if he is within a second or two of you. If that had been a street circuit he would have hit the wall...

    Offline Dare

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #2 on: June 10, 2019, 01:36:53 PM »
  • Publish
  • Another point of view of the incident. Another
    comment ,if Ferrari hadn't screwed up Charles by
    keeping him out he'd have won the race.

    https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/reason-vettel-punished-canada/4461461/
    "The
    democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
    who are
    willing to work and give to those who would not."
    --
    Thomas
    Jefferson

    Offline John S

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #3 on: June 10, 2019, 02:40:58 PM »
  • Publish
  • I may be in the minority but I agreed with Seb getting a penalty - but not for unsafe re-entry. He cut the corner and gained an advantage. Clearly Hamilton would overtaken if Vettel hadnít blocked him. He didnít give up the place so he deserved a penalty. I canít understand why there was so much uproar

    I agree totally for Vettel to get the penalty.

    I'm thinking though that stewards can clearly demonstrate Vettel forced Lewis to go all wheels off the track. This is often a penalty when car is alongside you whether they are coming back onto track or not. Returning onto track and forcing the other car out is just a Slam dunk.

    Had they penalised for gaining an advantage the uproar could be much bigger I feel. Lewis was not close enough to attempt a pass until he forced Vettel's error, had he been within say 3yds of Vettel before his off then sure it would be gaining an advantage to prevent Lewis overtaking in such a way.   
    Racing is life - everything else is just waiting. (Steve McQueen)

    Offline Jericoke

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #4 on: June 10, 2019, 03:09:50 PM »
  • Publish
  • I may be in the minority but I agreed with Seb getting a penalty - but not for unsafe re-entry. He cut the corner and gained an advantage. Clearly Hamilton would overtaken if Vettel hadnít blocked him. He didnít give up the place so he deserved a penalty. I canít understand why there was so much uproar

    Agreed, once Vettel became a passenger, there's not much he could do.  But he clearly gained an advantage by going off and then crowding the racing line, which is normally a penalty that they call.  I'm not sure why he didn't immediately give the place up and then fight back.

    (As for Lewis not wanting to win 'this way', I think he would have preferred that Vettel give up the spot and then have a proper fight for the win).

    The bigger picture, though, is people are calling for trickier tracks that punish drivers who make a mistake.  Well, this is a trickier track that punishes drivers who make a mistake. 

    That's what modern F1 racing looks like without large paved run off areas.

    Offline cosworth151

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #5 on: June 10, 2019, 03:20:04 PM »
  • Publish
  • After the race, Karun Chandhok did an excellent frame by frame analysis of Vettel's on-board. He came to the conclusion that Vettel hadn't regained control. He stated that the rear end was still loose and if Seb hadn't steered to the right that the car would have spun. It was a very convincing presentation. I had to agree with him.

    If Vettel did check his mirror, as Dare's link says, that changes everything. Seb claimed that he didn't know for sure where Lewis was.

    As for not yielding his position to Hamilton - Unless Race Control tells him to let the Merc pass he can't be blamed for not doing it.

    I agree with Jeri about the tracks. If this had been at a track like Paul Ricard, with parking lot sized runoffs, it would have be just another "oh, well" move.

    In any case, I was glad to see that the two drivers made it very plain that they didn't blame each other.
    ďYou can search the world over for the finer things, but you won't find a match for the American road and the creatures that live on it.Ē
    ― Bob Dylan

    Online rmassart

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #6 on: June 10, 2019, 05:00:14 PM »
  • Publish
  • I had a look on the video on the official F1 site. Vettel definitely makes a second move to the right. Whether that was needed or not to keep the car under control is something I can't say.

    However my view is that it seems to be too much luck to go off track and then return out of control, right into the path of Hamilton. But in such a way as not to hit him.

    I also don't quite agree it was all out of control. Sure he lost control, but from that moment on he is trying to bring the car under control as well as he can. Truly out of control would look a little different to me. In fact I think he did an excellent job of getting control over the car. So well that he could even keep Hamilton behind him. Legally or not.

    Offline Alianora La Canta

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #7 on: June 10, 2019, 09:59:34 PM »
  • Publish
  • I'm with monty regarding Vettel. Out-of-control cars don't get penalties unless they either produce an actual collision or the cause was outright recklessness. At no point has anyone suggested either event occurred. However, they do get penalties (just like anyone else) if they gain (or in this case keep) an improper advantage without yielding it (rmassart, this is the "yield if opponent close behind" rule, or at least F1's version of it). It does not look like Vettel truly had control over the car until it was too late to prevent Hamilton's path from being blocked, which is the critical part for the reasoning the stewards gave. It looked like Vettel was trying everything he could think of, simply to avoid the crash, which is why you see moments of partial control that he cumulatively used to regain the car's composure. Obviously that would include looking in mirrors (even if, at the point of looking at the mirrors, there might not have been any immediate ability to act on the information - if it's anything like when I spin in a kart, the times when one is able to fix a spin are moments when 100% concentration on this is needed and looking in the mirrors is likely to cause more problems than simply extrapolating from information already gathered using the sounds one can hear. Also, from Jonathan Noble's write-up, it seems the stewards forgot the run-off for that corner is bumpy, a fact that will not have escaped any driver on their track walk...

    The distinction is important. In the judgement monty and I are making, Vettel could have avoided all this simply by letting Hamilton go past after he'd recollected the car. This would have let them duke it out for 10 laps and the stewards could have relaxed. However, the "dangerous rejoin" reasoning meant that there was no way for Vettel to make amends after the move was done, due to no scope for amends being established in the regulations or in F1 practise. (It certainly can't be done by yielding the position, which was why race control never suggested that action to Ferrari).

    This is not to say I have no sympathy for Vettel. Because the stewards gave him the wrong reason, he doesn't get the opportunity to meaningfully learn from the experience, and is simply left with an impossible task on his hands - according to the stewards, he's meant to either have total control of his car at all times under all circumstances (something no driver can do)... ...or mess up more thoroughly by ensuring he loses control before he's even started to turn (in order to use the "right" method of rejoining, something denied him because he'd already committed to a partial turn before the traction broke). Any stewarding decision that encourages drivers to drive worse is bad jurisprudence.

    In short, good penalty, bad reasoning... ...and we haven't heard the last of this.

    PS: I agree with cos that it's refreshing to see two rivals who understand the situation well enough to not use it to stoke their rivalry, but rather as a bridge to better understanding. A pity that Martin Brundle did not show the same understanding on the podium - a question that starts with laying into a driver is not going to be dignified with an answer just because it happens to be on the podium.

    PPS: I think dare is right and Leclerc lost a victory here, though it would have been a narrow margin (enough that maybe Vettel or Hamilton could have prevented it had that path been attempted) and not the slam-dunk of Baku, let alone Bahrain. However, after Monaco, I think enough of a gap has been established that Ferrari has reason to prefer a Vettel victory to a Leclerc one (since it is not beyond reason for Vettel to have won this time either). Had wear been a bit higher, this could have generated a Leclerc victory anyway, after Vettel and Hamilton pitted. Also, I see the tactical merit of leaving Leclerc out - it forced Hamilton to stay on a single-stop strategy, which the Mercedes didn't seem to enjoy as much as the Ferraris, and prevented Lewis from getting the fastest lap. In short, Ferrari were trying to ensure that a Ferrari won regardless of what Mercedes did, and that the probability went to Vettel, forgetting that Vettel is quite capable of defeating himself, thank you very much.
    Percussus resurgio
    @lacanta (Twitter)
    http://alianoralacanta.tumblr.com (Blog/Tumblr)

    Offline John S

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #8 on: June 11, 2019, 02:41:59 PM »
  • Publish
  • The decision about Vettel returning to the track was definitely investigated as an unsafe return after viewing other footage not available to world feed and other telemetry from Ferrari & Merc cars according to Jon Noble.

    A second steering wheel input from Sebastian Vettel after he regained control of his Ferrari following his off-track excursion was key to the decision to punish him at the Canadian Grand Prix, Motorsport.com has learned.

    The stewards examined slow motion footage of Vettel's actions from the moment that he had regained control and started steering his car Ė and it was felt that it showed that the German could have chosen a different path than the one he took.
    The footage clearly captures Vettel correcting an oversteer moment as he re-joins the track Ė which is shown by a sharp steering wheel movement to the right by the German.
    Shortly after that, however, Vettel has dispatched the oversteer and begins steering to the left to follow the direction of the circuit - suggesting he is now under control.

    But a split moment later, rather than keeping to the left, Vettel is shown to release the steering wheel which allows his car to drift to the right Ė cutting off the route that Hamilton would have taken had he had clear space.
    The movement to straighten the wheel, which put Vettel into the path of Hamilton, is believed to be key to the unanimous decision by the stewards to punish Vettel.
    A further reason the stewards established was through the use of an extra CCTV camera view of the incident, which was not broadcast on the international feed, showing Vettel's head looking in the mirrors at where Hamilton was during these moments when he was releasing the wheel to the right.

    Onboard footage of the Vettel incident also shows his head looking towards the mirrors in the moment when he is drifting out, suggesting he knew where Hamilton was.
    Had Vettel kept his car tight to the left once he had regained control, then there was likely enough room to have allowed Hamilton through on the right, in which case the matter would almost certainly not have been investigated.
    The fact that telemetry data showed Hamilton had to brake to avoid the collision with Vettel showed how the Mercedes driver was caught out by his rival's actions.
    Courtesy Jonathan Noble, Motorsport.com, Mon 10th June.
    Racing is life - everything else is just waiting. (Steve McQueen)

    Offline monty

    • Triple World Champion
    • ***
    • Date Registered: May 2006
    • Location: UK
    • Posts: 1469
    • 5000 credits
    • View Inventory
    • Send Money To monty
    • Iím a cynical pessimistÖ.rarely disappointed!
    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #9 on: June 11, 2019, 02:51:20 PM »
  • Publish
  • I always feel a little smug when Ali agrees with me; like I have expert approval  ;)
    It seems that despite some immediate Ďcrazy penaltyí reactions most people are now agreeing with the stewards. It is easy to condemn them but it is a difficult and thankless job! I had some initial sympathy for Seb but his endless whinging and disrespectful actions ensured any sympathy soon dissipated!

    Online rmassart

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #10 on: June 11, 2019, 04:25:44 PM »
  • Publish
  • I am wondering what others think about Vettel's comments afterwards:

    Quote
    "I really love my racing. I'm a purist. I love going back and looking at the old times, the old cars, the old drivers. It's an honour when you have the chance to meet them and talk to them; they're heroes in a way.

    "But I just wish I was maybe as good, doing what I do, but being in their time rather than today.

    "It's not just about that decision today, there's other decisions. Just hear the wording when people come on the radio, that we have now. We have an official language; I think it's all wrong.

    "We should be able to say what we think but we're not, so in this regard I disagree with where the sport is now.

    "You have all this wording 'I gained an advantage, I didn't gain an advantage, I avoided a collision'. I just think it's wrong, you know, it's not really what we're doing in the car. It's racing. It's common sense."

    "We all sound a bit like lawyers and using the official language. I think it just gives no edge to people and no edge to the sport."

    I do not know which old days Vettel is referring to but if he wants to return to times when the average life expectancy of racing driver was a couple of handfuls of races then he is surely in a minority of one.

    For as far back as I followed F1 (mid-80s) it has always been political, full of cheating, gaining an advantage legally or not (eg Ballestre switching the side of the polesitter to the be the dirty part of the track in Japan '90). There has been little love lost between drivers and most would take an extra point any which way they could if they weren't caught.

    The reason for all these new rules and regulations is that with coverage as detailed as it is most of the time it is clear something is not right - we can all see the replays from 10 angles. Just like in football the need for VAR has become necessary, even if hated, because more often than not when a ref messes up, everyone at home as well as in the stadium connected to 4G knows it 3 seconds later.

    Well it's the same in F1. If all the drivers raced with their hand on their heart in pure honesty like maybe they did in the 60s it would not be necessary. Because the honorable thing in the 50s and 60s might have seen Vettel willingly relinquish his position to Hamilton, acknowledging that irrespective of track position he messed up and Hamilton didn't and the fact that he was still ahead was pure luck (maybe with a dose of recklessness aka cheating).

    My point: if Vettel wants to return to the good old days of F1 racing then he should act the part, knowing full well that any contact between two cars might be fatal. But at the moment the only driver who seems to be driving this way is Hamilton - I can't remember the last time he had a collision or made an error forcing him off track in such a way he rejoined out of control. A quick check on Wikipedia indicates his last collision was with Rosberg in Spain '16 and that was generally considered to be Rosberg's fault.

    Sorry for the long post, but what frustrates me more about this whole episode is not Vettel's action on track, but his comments afterwards.

    Offline Alianora La Canta

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #11 on: June 11, 2019, 05:44:50 PM »
  • Publish
  • I am wondering what others think about Vettel's comments afterwards:

    Quote
    "I really love my racing. I'm a purist. I love going back and looking at the old times, the old cars, the old drivers. It's an honour when you have the chance to meet them and talk to them; they're heroes in a way.

    "But I just wish I was maybe as good, doing what I do, but being in their time rather than today.

    "It's not just about that decision today, there's other decisions. Just hear the wording when people come on the radio, that we have now. We have an official language; I think it's all wrong.

    "We should be able to say what we think but we're not, so in this regard I disagree with where the sport is now.

    "You have all this wording 'I gained an advantage, I didn't gain an advantage, I avoided a collision'. I just think it's wrong, you know, it's not really what we're doing in the car. It's racing. It's common sense."

    "We all sound a bit like lawyers and using the official language. I think it just gives no edge to people and no edge to the sport."

    I do not know which old days Vettel is referring to but if he wants to return to times when the average life expectancy of racing driver was a couple of handfuls of races then he is surely in a minority of one.

    For as far back as I followed F1 (mid-80s) it has always been political, full of cheating, gaining an advantage legally or not (eg Ballestre switching the side of the polesitter to the be the dirty part of the track in Japan '90). There has been little love lost between drivers and most would take an extra point any which way they could if they weren't caught.

    The reason for all these new rules and regulations is that with coverage as detailed as it is most of the time it is clear something is not right - we can all see the replays from 10 angles. Just like in football the need for VAR has become necessary, even if hated, because more often than not when a ref messes up, everyone at home as well as in the stadium connected to 4G knows it 3 seconds later.

    Well it's the same in F1. If all the drivers raced with their hand on their heart in pure honesty like maybe they did in the 60s it would not be necessary. Because the honorable thing in the 50s and 60s might have seen Vettel willingly relinquish his position to Hamilton, acknowledging that irrespective of track position he messed up and Hamilton didn't and the fact that he was still ahead was pure luck (maybe with a dose of recklessness aka cheating).

    My point: if Vettel wants to return to the good old days of F1 racing then he should act the part, knowing full well that any contact between two cars might be fatal. But at the moment the only driver who seems to be driving this way is Hamilton - I can't remember the last time he had a collision or made an error forcing him off track in such a way he rejoined out of control. A quick check on Wikipedia indicates his last collision was with Rosberg in Spain '16 and that was generally considered to be Rosberg's fault.

    Sorry for the long post, but what frustrates me more about this whole episode is not Vettel's action on track, but his comments afterwards.

    He means the old days of stewards being a relative light touch and drivers not feeling the need to phrase excuses in the right way to make the stewards understand what was happening (the latter has become prevalent across the last seven or eight years, and was barely a thing when Vettel started in F1, let alone beforehand). If Sebastian wanted to be a professional lawyer, he likely would never have donned a helmet.

    Of course, these were also the days when drivers (along with ignorance and the laws of physics) enforced higher standards between themselves than the stewards currently enforce.

    Vettel and his cohorts could go back to this without bringing back all the downsides of "the old days". All they have to do is enforce a stricter standard amongst themselves, with independent investigations and sanctions for those who fail to comply, than the FIA currently imposes. They can communicate with each other about all this in the plain language they're used to, and not stand for cute verbal tricks or using legalese to duck a justified response. Maybe the FIA would never ease off, but it would become less regarded as time went on, and eventually someone would get the hint and allow the drivers a bit more freedom provided they maintained their general standards.
    Percussus resurgio
    @lacanta (Twitter)
    http://alianoralacanta.tumblr.com (Blog/Tumblr)

    Offline Jericoke

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #12 on: June 11, 2019, 08:05:38 PM »
  • Publish
  • I am wondering what others think about Vettel's comments afterwards:

    Quote
    "I really love my racing. I'm a purist. I love going back and looking at the old times, the old cars, the old drivers. It's an honour when you have the chance to meet them and talk to them; they're heroes in a way.

    "But I just wish I was maybe as good, doing what I do, but being in their time rather than today.

    "It's not just about that decision today, there's other decisions. Just hear the wording when people come on the radio, that we have now. We have an official language; I think it's all wrong.

    "We should be able to say what we think but we're not, so in this regard I disagree with where the sport is now.

    "You have all this wording 'I gained an advantage, I didn't gain an advantage, I avoided a collision'. I just think it's wrong, you know, it's not really what we're doing in the car. It's racing. It's common sense."

    "We all sound a bit like lawyers and using the official language. I think it just gives no edge to people and no edge to the sport."

    I do not know which old days Vettel is referring to but if he wants to return to times when the average life expectancy of racing driver was a couple of handfuls of races then he is surely in a minority of one.

    For as far back as I followed F1 (mid-80s) it has always been political, full of cheating, gaining an advantage legally or not (eg Ballestre switching the side of the polesitter to the be the dirty part of the track in Japan '90). There has been little love lost between drivers and most would take an extra point any which way they could if they weren't caught.

    The reason for all these new rules and regulations is that with coverage as detailed as it is most of the time it is clear something is not right - we can all see the replays from 10 angles. Just like in football the need for VAR has become necessary, even if hated, because more often than not when a ref messes up, everyone at home as well as in the stadium connected to 4G knows it 3 seconds later.

    Well it's the same in F1. If all the drivers raced with their hand on their heart in pure honesty like maybe they did in the 60s it would not be necessary. Because the honorable thing in the 50s and 60s might have seen Vettel willingly relinquish his position to Hamilton, acknowledging that irrespective of track position he messed up and Hamilton didn't and the fact that he was still ahead was pure luck (maybe with a dose of recklessness aka cheating).

    My point: if Vettel wants to return to the good old days of F1 racing then he should act the part, knowing full well that any contact between two cars might be fatal. But at the moment the only driver who seems to be driving this way is Hamilton - I can't remember the last time he had a collision or made an error forcing him off track in such a way he rejoined out of control. A quick check on Wikipedia indicates his last collision was with Rosberg in Spain '16 and that was generally considered to be Rosberg's fault.

    Sorry for the long post, but what frustrates me more about this whole episode is not Vettel's action on track, but his comments afterwards.

    He means the old days of stewards being a relative light touch and drivers not feeling the need to phrase excuses in the right way to make the stewards understand what was happening (the latter has become prevalent across the last seven or eight years, and was barely a thing when Vettel started in F1, let alone beforehand). If Sebastian wanted to be a professional lawyer, he likely would never have donned a helmet.

    Of course, these were also the days when drivers (along with ignorance and the laws of physics) enforced higher standards between themselves than the stewards currently enforce.

    Vettel and his cohorts could go back to this without bringing back all the downsides of "the old days". All they have to do is enforce a stricter standard amongst themselves, with independent investigations and sanctions for those who fail to comply, than the FIA currently imposes. They can communicate with each other about all this in the plain language they're used to, and not stand for cute verbal tricks or using legalese to duck a justified response. Maybe the FIA would never ease off, but it would become less regarded as time went on, and eventually someone would get the hint and allow the drivers a bit more freedom provided they maintained their general standards.

    Maybe we can solve a few problems here.

    Allow the cars to bump, without penalty. 

    Drivers will be prepared for it.  A modern F1 is safe enough that I don't think lives are in danger unless the cars are launched into a crowded area (which should be avoidable).  The flimsy aero bits will have to become much stronger as the pull double duty as battering rams/armour, which means the cars won't be as reliant on aero, which makes passing easier.

    Personally, I like that there's no contact allowed, but it would have solved the entire problem if Hamilton had been confident his Mercedes would have just punted the out of control Ferrari out of the way.  And fans love Max, so this encourages his driving style.  It would be a boon for Haas; Grosjean can go back to being the heedless driver that got him into F1 in the first place.  The smaller teams wouldn't be as worried about having to rebuild a car after spinning out and touching a wall.

    Offline John S

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #13 on: June 11, 2019, 09:45:00 PM »
  • Publish
  • Racing is life - everything else is just waiting. (Steve McQueen)

    Offline Jericoke

    Re: Correct penalty, wrong reason
    « Reply #14 on: June 12, 2019, 02:57:55 PM »
  • Publish

  • So you want F1 stock cars then Jeri.  ;)

    https://www.gpwizard.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21669.0.html

    I don't want it.  Just suggesting it would solve a lot of things people currently see as a problem with the sport.