the days of racing have left F1, its all about the poll position nowadays.
Which of the drivers in post 170 is ambassador for Ferrari??? So it is about 100-3 in drivers opinion but you feel backed by Nico and Keke Rosberg... again: hahahaha
Was the penalty wrong, in my opinion in the spirit of racing, then Yes it was. Why? SV and LH engaged in a split second tussle for a position on the track. Unfortunately rules are rules and the regulations have to be administered and dealt with, that’s where the problem occurs. So. The 2019 Sporting Regulations give total authority to the stewards to look at really anything they deem an incident: 2019 Sporting Regulations 38) INCIDENTS DURING THE RACE 38.1 The race director may report any on‐track incident or suspected breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code (an “Incident”) to the stewards. After review it shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide whether or not to proceed with an investigation. The stewards may also investigate an Incident noted by themselves. The appendix to those regulations give brief but specific requirements of drivers code which the stewards have to enforce, highlighted in bold below. APPENDIX L TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING CODE 2b Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried out on either the right or the left. A driver may not deliberately leave the track without justifiable reason. More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner. However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards. 2c Drivers must use the track at all times. For the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not. Should a car leave the track for any reason, and without prejudice to 2(d) below, the driver may rejoin. However, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any advantage. A driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track. 2d Causing a collision, repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack of control over the car (such as leaving the track) will be reported to the Stewards and may entail the imposition of penalties up to and including the exclusion of any driver concerned. I don’t really see what area SF can appeal against these, except, that he did not change direction (more than once) to crowd out LH He did not leave at least one cars width and therefore crowded out the other driver He did re-join safely (car was under control) He did lack control and this caused into leave the track in the first place I call that a draw and therefore in that context, the stewards should have let them get on with it.
Fair enough! Instead of just agreeing with just Nico, Keke AND Palmer, i may also agree with Hill who said "In my personal view he (Vettel) could have left more room" ... and maybe i'll agree with Chilton who said "I can see it both ways". But then there's still those pesky sporting regulations, as they exist today ...
I think it's hard not to agree with him. He is correct on almost all points. The stewards made a mistake, the driver's should have been left to race, Vettels number board antics were entertaining (but churlish), the crowd was wrong to boo Hamilton and Vettel was right to point this out and finally, significantly... that both championships are already over after 7 races.
No Bias here. Both are world Champions, but when someone like Mario Andretti speaks up - you have to listen. Both Keke and Nico together could not out drive Andretti... who this very day is out driving an old Indy car 8/10ths..... It was a bad call, plain and simple. Vettel has made lots of mistakes - true. I don't know what is going on with him but clearly the car does not suit him like the Red Bull did ... and he does not have the ability to fix it... and the converse is true with Hamilton. He's benefiting from a superior car... and add in good driving and he's getting the reward. All of that has nothing to do with poor stewarding, and a bad decision. Now the FIA will not do what is right and this will cause F-1 to continue to be a farce... I wish they could just dust off the cars from 1995 and use those all over again.
I pulled out my FIA rule book FY19... and you have the right section, however I think the highlighted section is if you did it deliberately... and the other section is if you demonstrate repeated loss of control... ( is one time out of 70 laps a repeated demonstration of loss of control? ) In my opinion it was a momentary loss, and the driver did not gain any advantage... at all. That is the part that really matters to me ... if he actually gained an advantage - other than wrecking? I cant see anyone saying - "nope you left the track at speed all 4 off, and were heading to the wall - you should have crashed and therefore you have an advantage on the car following. if that is so - I should have won a couple of races last year easily.
I agree, unfortunately replays are ruining most sports, hockey especially with the review of the offside replay.
Ross Brawn explains the problem: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/brawn-stewards-penalties-vettel-canada/4464320/ Translation: "it´s your fault, you don´t understand us". But I think that something is ****ed up in the system when the boss has to clarify that the stewards are not corrupt. From the article: “Having said that, I would emphatically add is that there is nothing sinister about a decision like this. You might agree with it or not, but none of those who take on the role of steward each weekend has a hidden agenda and fans can be certain of that.” FWIW, I don´t think that the stewards are biased, their decisions are just too random to be biased.
I agree mate, they are just incompetent, biased, scared of Mercedes and completely incapable of understanding and applying the regulations in the spirit in which they are meant. This weekend, as very often, the wrong decision was made, the only difference is that this time everyone in the world bar a few dyed in the wool Elton fans can see where they went wrong
And remember this is the guy who made that Mercedes team and help write the rules of the sport that are benefiting that Mercedes team.
Absolutely.... they know something is wrong when their supervisor comes out and gives interviews trying to deflect the criticism. I met Ross Brawn, Ferrari version, and he was a very stoic and intelligent man. The new version is a very politically sensitive and watered down one, who would not be recognisable by his previous incarnations
Fred Smith, of Road & Track, also says the rules are to blame: https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/a27892294/unfortunately-this-is-formula-1-now/
if only "momentary" was in the wording. I don't disagree with the point you are making either but - "the appearance of a lack of control over the car (such as leaving the track) will be reported to the Stewards and may entail the imposition of penalties" is quite specific and covers several excursions or just one.
Agreed in principle, BUT, the stewards do not apply penalties where the car did not hit anything, was gathered back up, and was able to continue. Causing another car to crash is one thing, but causing one to gently tap the brakes whilst making his own rather hopeful and optimistic move towards an ever closing gap?, not really the spirit of the rules to be penalised ever before. If it was, I suspect we could all name dozens of occasions where races would be won or lost with additional penalties, and the number of questionable ones where Elton hasn’t been penalised and under your rules above, if interpreted your way, he would have been, he would have totted up his penalty points most years and had at least a one race ban, being known for the kamikaze lunge (particularly on Nico) as he is!
Totally agree which is what I was trying to emphasise by the highlighting the rules, they are for reference but they are not "my" rules Best Tony
Sorry Tony, I thought afterwards when I reread it and a few before it, and it was too late to change mine! I had a wierd feeling as I wrote it that we had been in agreement for days on this, but you know me, gob first, brain second! Forza Ferrari
No problem Sid, I took what you was saying in good faith. The problem is that the rules are rather sketchy and open to all kinds of interpretation, the stewards are selected to adjudicate on those rules and are rather boxed into a corner. If they hadn't given SV a time penalty then Toto would have been screaming foul play. Like you I want to see fairness in the sport and feel SV was hard done by, looking at all the infringements during the whole episode I would call it a draw and they should have decided on favouring the lead driver trying to recover from a error. In my book they considered only part of the "incident" from SV leaving the track to re-joining it. At full (video) speed the whole thing was over in under three seconds which is amazing really. I was just looking at the Gilles Villeneuve v Rene Arnoux "incident many years ago and thought how the hell could those two have got away with that today! That's a part of F1 racing that has been stripped out of the sport because of how much is at stake.
Great point... today both Arnoux and Villeneuve would have been banned from racing.... impeding a fellow driver and driving in a dangerous way....
If a penalty is needed - then a 1 place grid drop on the next race.... OR investigate after the race - hear from both drivers and then make the decision...