GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Dare on June 27, 2017, 01:28:17 PM
-
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/130410
-
Telemetry data used for the FIA's investigation ruled out Hamilton having brake-tested Vettel.
The issue was Seb hitting Lewis. Not the original hit from behind, but the bump from the side. I will agree with JV that Vettel didn't do it deliberately. He did it when he was so busy throwing a tantrum that he forgot to drive the car.
I understand about drivers & "the red mist." Been there, done that. That said, retaliation bumps on a 1/2 mile dirt oval is one thing. Doing it in an F1 car is a completely different matter.
-
Telemetry data used for the FIA's investigation ruled out Hamilton having brake-tested Vettel.
The issue was Seb hitting Lewis. Not the original hit from behind, but the bump from the side. I will agree with JV that Vettel didn't do it deliberately. He did it when he was so busy throwing a tantrum that he forgot to drive the car.
I understand about drivers & "the red mist." Been there, done that. That said, retaliation bumps on a 1/2 mile dirt oval is one thing. Doing it in an F1 car is a completely different matter.
How often do we see IndyCar restarts 'waved off' if the cars aren't lined up properly?
Hamilton has a long history of bending the rules on a restart, so Vettel really should have known better even if Lewis DID brake test him, he should have expected it.
I do think that Vettel's penalty seemed fair. He did get points on his licence, so another similar incident will see him suspended from racing.
In the greater scheme, Villeneuve is right that it's nice to see some passion from the drivers, but we don't want to see the sport become violent/dangerous. I think the radio tirades do a great job of injecting drama into the sport.
-
Well said.
-
I agree Lonny it is well said especially the part
"Hamilton has a long history of bending the rules on a restart"
-
Lewis bends a lot of rules and almost always gets away with it. >:D
-
Oh dear!
-
What is Hamilton's 'Long history of bending the rules on a restart' ?
-
What is Hamilton's 'Long history of bending the rules on a restart' ?
Alas, I've outgrown my ability to retain information encylopediacly.
But he's made an art form of backing up the grid more so than other drivers. He accelerates and slows in an attempt to drop the following car outside of the range they're supposed to keep apart. He has brake tested in the past. He's gotten too close to the pace car, he's gotten too far from the pace car.
Most drivers just drive slowly behind the safety car and try to keep their tires clean and warm. Hamilton spends the whole time messing with the cars behind him, and if he's not leading, the car ahead of him.
There's nothing wrong with that. 'Bending the rules' is a time honoured tradition in F1: anything that wins the race is good if you're not disqualified.
-
What Jeri just said.
JV has a point....and he should know.
-
What Willy just said he and Jacques are both from
Canada so he should know.
-
I wouldn't call 'backing up the grid' bending the rules, plenty of drivers have done that. If a driver was to suddenly brake needlessly sending the car behind into the barriers, yes, definitely wrong. Just to add, I'm not mindlessly supporting Hamilton.
-
Ah, mindfully supporting Hamilton? ;)
-
How has this become an attack on Hamilton? Vettel drove into the back of him and then drove into the side of him and yet we are discussing Hamilton's restarts????
There have not been many restarts in all of Hamilton's F1 career so how anyone can generalise about how he handles them is beyond me. I only have one comment about how he handles a restart - I do not think he has ever been penalised and he was completely exonerated at Baku.
-
Well it brings up discussion, doesn't it. I think he is quite provocative when he is leading the field at the end of a SC session. In this case I don't think he should be penalized, but I think he pays too much attention to his mirrors (or maybe not enough?) when the SC pulls away. His right, his choice, but stuff happens.
Again, Vettel was an idiot for responding.
-
We all agree Seb was wrong but still IMO Hamilton could
have slowed before the turn not in it.
-
Another thing,it's been said Seb was following too close but
in races the racers are right on their tails at 200 mph so how
could it be too close at say 50 mph? Cars don't usually suddenly
slow at race speeds,maybe that will change too.
-
it's been said Seb was following too close
It hasn't just been said - he was too close ;)
The point is, it was his responsibility not to drive into the guy in front. At that time they were a long way away from the restart line so he should have kept further back. I think he knows that which is why he reacted so badly. He had made himself look an idiot so he tried to make it Hamilton's fault.
-
it's been said Seb was following too close
It hasn't just been said - he was too close ;)
The point is, it was his responsibility not to drive into the guy in front. At that time they were a long way away from the restart line so he should have kept further back. I think he knows that which is why he reacted so badly. He had made himself look an idiot so he tried to make it Hamilton's fault.
It was never clear what the stop/go penalty was for, if it was for the bump from behind, if it was for the wreckless driving (I don't think Vettel meant the side on side bump, but is still 100% responsible for it), or for the entire episode.
I think if Vettel had accepted he got away with not being disqualified, the FIA might have left it alone, but to continue whining about it ("what did I do wrong?") left the FIA no choice but to look into it further. All sports require the participants respect the officials at all times, even if the officials have clearly gotten things wrong.
-
Perfect summary Jeri :good:
-
Too right Jeri, all sportspeople should respect officials as they do in rugby union.
-
Too right Jeri, all sportspeople should respect officials as they do in rugby union.
MLB umpires, NFL refs and NHL linesmen would love to get that kind of respect from the players. ;)
-
Too right Jeri, all sportspeople should respect officials as they do in rugby union.
MLB umpires, NFL refs and NHL linesmen would love to get that kind of respect from the players. ;)
Of course! But players/coaches are regularly penalized for criticism of officiating.
NFL is probably the closest to FIA officials, it's not their full time job, something they just do on weekends for fun.
-
The RFU is about the only sport that shows due respect to the officials and the referee has the power to award a converted try if his authority is questioned or disregarded. The team captains are the only players who are allowed to approach the ref although that does not stop players asking a ref what they have done wrong. Even at the lowest leagues of the sport the ref is called Sir out of respect for his position. Take a look at Nigel Owens in action below.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/GTaMYh1czgM
-
Vettel was lucky not to be disqualified, however, on balance, it was probably reasonable to just issue him with a penalty and points on his licence. His manoeuvre was deliberate and intentional. I think that a number of you are are confusing these two words with premeditation. His move was not premeditated and that, for me, was the only reason not to disqualify Vettel, but he deliberately drove into Hamilton and he has to take responsibility for that.
-
Vettel was lucky not to be disqualified, however, on balance, it was probably reasonable to just issue him with a penalty and points on his licence. His manoeuvre was deliberate and intentional. I think that a number of you are are confusing these two words with premeditation. His move was not premeditated and that, for me, was the only reason not to disqualify Vettel, but he deliberately drove into Hamilton and he has to take responsibility for that.
So on that theory road rage which is what it was is excusable as its not premeditated?
The only reason to have disqualified him was due to his previous offences and to send a message to everyone in motorsport that there is a standard to uphold to and it will be enforced at all levels.
-
Vettel was lucky not to be disqualified, however, on balance, it was probably reasonable to just issue him with a penalty and points on his licence. His manoeuvre was deliberate and intentional. I think that a number of you are are confusing these two words with premeditation. His move was not premeditated and that, for me, was the only reason not to disqualify Vettel, but he deliberately drove into Hamilton and he has to take responsibility for that.
On a point of order here, did Vettel decide to move alongside Hamilton, after the initial shunt, gesticulate and then allow his car to steer towards Lewis or not?
Now unless you're suggesting an unconscious sort of sleepwalking was occurring premeditation must have taken place.
I fully understand that the first impact had no premeditation. However the heavy stop go nature of the penalty - and calling it dangerous driving - are not the usual 5 or 10secs added time for a simple 'causing a collision' charge. :nono:
IMHO more attention was paid to the second part of the encounter by the stewards precisely because it was something Vettel consciously chose to do in response to a perceived - wrongly it's been proven - action from Lewis.
Now because F1 drivers are more capable of lightning fast decision making than most of us, the great unwashed, his choice can only be considered a plan, hence premeditation.
To put it another way if it's not premeditation it's something far worse - a driver so unable to control his anger he lashes out without thinking.
-
I don't know what you guys are on about...in my opinion yes he did drive beside Hamilton and on PURPOSE drove into Hamilton in retaliation. But my opinion is also that they could have DQ'd him right then and there, and I would have been miserable about my picks, but completely ok with him getting the correct penalty for the infraction. But to stop-n-go him another 15 laps down the road, and then to re-visit it post race...sorry, they need to reform the stewarding and penalty process. The steward needs to look at the infraction immediately and make a call within a couple of laps. If the teams don't accept the call, they can post race appeal that should only affect the team's result in that race...no more next race grid penalties.
...just my opinion.
If the teams and drivers can't accept the decision during the race, they can appeal it afterward, but
-
Ha Ha Dare.
Ya Jacques and I ...oh and Jeri are all Canadian and we all know each other as well.
-
I think you'll also find Phil and I are Cannucks.
-
I think you'll also find Phil and I are Cannucks.
Is that a breed of duck? ;)
-
I think you'll also find Phil and I are Cannucks.
Is that a breed of duck? ;)
Nope, a loon
-
I think you'll also find Phil and I are Cannucks.
You guys play hockey for Vancouver? ;)
-
So on that theory road rage which is what it was is excusable as its not premeditated?
No. Formula 1 isn't comparable to road driving and there is a different points system in use for sanctioning drivers. The fact that he was penalised means that what he did was not excused. The debate is about whether the penalty was sufficient.
On a point of order here, did Vettel decide to move alongside Hamilton, after the initial shunt, gesticulate and then allow his car to steer towards Lewis or not?
Now unless you're suggesting an unconscious sort of sleepwalking was occurring premeditation must have taken place.
I fully understand that the first impact had no premeditation. However the heavy stop go nature of the penalty - and calling it dangerous driving - are not the usual 5 or 10secs added time for a simple 'causing a collision' charge. :nono:
IMHO more attention was paid to the second part of the encounter by the stewards precisely because it was something Vettel consciously chose to do in response to a perceived - wrongly it's been proven - action from Lewis.
Now because F1 drivers are more capable of lightning fast decision making than most of us, the great unwashed, his choice can only be considered a plan, hence premeditation.
To put it another way if it's not premeditation it's something far worse - a driver so unable to control his anger he lashes out without thinking.
Premeditation would have involved Vettel deciding that he was going to take Hamilton out of the race from the start. Think about Senna versus Prost in 1990, when Senna admitted a year later that he had planned to take Prost out of the race deliberately. That was premeditation. That's not what happened in the case of Vettel and Hamilton.
I think that your last paragraph sums up what it was. Whether that's worse I'm not sure, however, it does demonstrate what I've felt for some time, that is to say that Vettel has a serious anger management problem. He cannot handle not winning and he loses control if everything does not go his way in every race.
-
Hey Cos....are you saying that Vancouver has a hockey team? Wow, is that what they are doing.