Originally Posted by Backward point
Yet the rule (as you kindly quoted earlier, emphasis in bold is mine) clearly states:
I genuinely have no desire to poke the fire here, but which of these did Hamilton not do in your view? He clearly dictated the pace, as the regulation quoted expressly permits, and certainly didn't appear to erratically brake, accelerate or manoeuvre......
jeff
1) this is F1, not football. It matters because they have specific rules, and the race direction applies them just like refs do.
2) My last sentence was more to calm down Hamilton fans who were starting to foam at the mouth. As said in my subsequent post there are many instances where the collision ended the race for the victim yet the penalty remained what it was in the rules.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Oh man, and again it is the Hamilton fans swamping the thread.
Will have a look later today, or tomorrow. Seems though that Bottas on the line beating Stroll from finishing 2nd in several ways deserves more attention.
IMHO, Vettel didn't profit from the action. Neither did he intend to although that's not the discussion here.
Had he not been penalised with a ten second stop/go penalty then he would have won the race instead of finishing fourth. Hamilton would have finished fifth even had Vettel not driven into him. Vettel would have scored 25 points but scored 12 and was therefore penalised 13 championship points.
Shows what little you know then??
"Hamilton was not penalised. The stewards examined data from his car and found that he had maintained a more or less constant speed, had not lifted off the throttle or braked, and had behaved no differently at that re-start at that point on the track than at the other two re-starts."
Try watching it before making stupid comments.
Vettel cocked up and should of admitted it and moved on ,shouldn't of done the ramming thing look at right tit
Thought Lewis handled the post race interview with massive maturity. He even put a spirited 'team ethic' spin on the silly headrest debacle which is very gracious.
Vettel, oh man. Made himself look a complete clown without a shred of honour after his interview. Idiot !
After the race, I was concerned with the Ch4 team's apparent fence sitting too. We've all seen it and everybody, whether a fan or not of either driver, knows what happened.
For whatever reason Vettel saw red and deliberately side swiped Hamilton.
There can be be no excuse for such behaviour and, I think, he should have been given the harshest possible penalty, i.e. disqualification.
If the stewards were reluctant to do this on the spot then, after reviewing footage, etc a one race ban should be imposed.
A three point penalty on his licence is laughable in these circumstances and does little to deter a repetition, especially when the stakes are high.
This.
Well said and spot on Jeremy. Utter disgrace and Charlie Whiting needs to grow a pair of balls..
Q: "For whatever reason Vettel saw red and deliberately side swiped Hamilton."
The only bit I might not agree with is "deliberately", because I think it possible that Vettel was so (unreasonably) enraged that, what with all his hand waving, he wasn't properly in control of his car. Is there a shot that shows what he was doing with this right hand? It would be easier to determine his intention, or lack of it, if it was on the wheel (his left wasn't).
Whatever the case, he was very much out of order and deserved the penalty that was imposed...or more.
I think someone mentioned above that the data and telemetry showed he turned the wheel to the right.
The telemetry probably can't show whether it was deliberate or not.
What can't be disputed is his pulling alongside being "accidental".
If's and buts. Surely it's the driver's and the team's decision whether they thought it was a risk. Also don't forget that unlike the old days all drivers wears a Haas brace, so you can argue the value of the extra padding anyway.
But since when did the FIA decide to pull drivers in for something that "could" happen rather than something what did happen.
Its smacks of someone applying pressure on the FIA to engineer a result favourable. Even after the SV penalty was announced they were on the radio to him telling him that he could take it and still get out in front of LH.
As for Vettel - complete knob.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
He's a 4 time world champion. A driver of immense talent. It was deliberate wheel to wheel contact.
Silly boy, and his interview was pathetic. Maybe aiming to deny everything in case further action taken?
Stroll did brilliantly. Great, calm drive.
Sent from my SM-G950F using TZ-UK mobile app
HANS reduces the risk of basilar skull fracture (from a forward motion accident) and is used in combination with the head restraint so the head doesn't flop around in the event of an accident. Without the head restraint HANS could theoretically work counter intuitively in an accident. The head restraint is more fundamental than HANS as it stops the head moving about too much in any accident (forward and sideways) and absorbs a lot of energy that otherwise would be transferred to the helmet and/or to the head.
I feel the FIA and Whiting in particular are too risk adverse these days, but the FIA spent a fortune and years testing this system so I completely agree with the call to pit him. Sadly it was the team that messed up and Hamilton paid the price. I'm sure Mercesdes won't let it happen again.
Vettel should have got a three race ban for deliberately hitting another car, as he would have got in any other class of motorsport, we all thought they had gone but
it seems that the FIA are back
A perfectly valid viewpoint. On reflection I think it was a poor choice of phrase on my part. What I probably should have said was that Vettel had profited despite his deliberate and rather cynical actions, and that no driver should do so under those circumstances.
Clearly he has profited in the sense that he has more points than he did at the start of the race. Had a disqualification been awarded (and I believe his actions warranted such a penalty) then he would not have increased his tally.
Hamilton, as you state, would probably still have finished 5th (or 4th with a DQ for Vettel?) although it's not clear what if any damage occurred as a result of the impacts (one could also speculate that the headrest may have been further dislodged by the incident but I think that would be thin at best :)
I think the notion that Vettel would/could have won had it not been for the penalty is a valid one but respectfully suggest it's rendered moot by his actions.
On a lighter note, wasn't it was great to see Mclaren back in the points!
jeff
Guys, you are making rules as you go along. There is a rule book and unless there is a rule that says he can be disqualified it just cannot happen.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
If it had fallen out, I would agree with you. The problem was it hadn't!! For all we know LH had the situation under control and managed to get it relocated, alas he was not given the option - by the FIA!
If the FIA are so worried, then why do they allow cars with serious mechanic issues, bits hanging off them, flats, etc continue to drive slowly around the track in order to get back to the pits. Surely this increases the risks to other drivers especially on tracks like this one with obvious choke points. They should also penalise drivers who "park" they cars in stupid places following a mechanical failure.
Don't even get me started on the fact they chose to use the actual safety cars - driven slowly, rather than a virtual safety car.
Finally (sorry for the rant) Bottas came 2nd after being allowed to unlap himself under the safety car! Crazy!
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Good to see Alonso hasn't lost his sense of humour either with his "Shame, we could have won this race" comment.
There are rules concerning dangerous driving are there not - one of the reasons for a black flag.
But given he was also given 3 points on his licence are you sure you want to continue to defend him.
I will be interested in seeing whether he also gets a grid penalty for the next race - 5 places for a gear box, how many for using your car as a weapon?
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
He would have been right if the cars in front of him had crashed or blown up.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
If nothing else it was interesting to see how actually "swishy" the head restraint is. Normally it looks a lot more firm when they take it out at the end of a race.
Vettel was obviously at fault but from the on board he kind of looks more like he went full left lock to get from behind and then full right to mouth off. The hit being then to maybe concentrating on the mouthing off rather than driving. Hamilton should be feeling quite smug about getting under his skin as normally it will benefit him rather than Vettel in the long run.
I chuckled when I heard him say that.
Andy, you are being stupid again. Read my posts I am not defending him. He was effing stupid and was punished according to the rule book. It was not considered to be black flag worthy, that is all. The precedents about using the car as a "weapon" ( a bit melodramatic, no?) go from Senna to Prost to Schumacher.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
As I said earlier he punishment is a three race ban, people have been banned for life for less
While it hadn't fallen out entirely, it was only hanging on by the side clips. It may have stayed in place for the duration, but it may not have. In either case I don't think it's a scenario that was worth testing. The right call was made for my money.
Be careful what you wish for! Whiting (perhaps on orders) has become more risk adverse since Japan '14 and some of the points you raise I fear will eventually be implemented. However a damaged car with an intact safety cell is safer than a car with a compromised one.
Yes I agree, the safety car/VSC race intervention needs looking at. It's interfering with results too heavily for my liking. It reminds me of the final years of CART when that became all about fuel mileage and guessing the caution period. Not sure what the answer is, but killing this bloody awful alternate race tyre rule would be a start.
Different foam densities are mandated by the FIA at the start of each session depending on the local climate, it's very sophisticated though and hardens on impact. So the reason it might have looked squishy on TV is because I'm guessing the temperature was deemed high enough that the softer version was used. There was an article detailing all the fine points by ScarbsF1 a little while ago that explains everything.
I have now and think even more so that you Hamilton fans are too prejudiced and silly to waste any words on. Bye.
The race was a pleasant surprise. Simply very entertaining. Thanks; good show F1!
How boring, reverting to name calling already, but read your posts again. By suggesting that IYO he was punished in accordance with the laws, you are defending him and the action taken against him.
However Deliberately hitting another car on track (which is exactly what he did) would get him a ban in any form of motor sport (with the exception of banger racing) - even in Karts. if Vettel had done that on the UK road, he would not only be banned from driving, he would have got 3 months in jail as a minimum.
As for calling it a weapon - what would you call it? A 900kg projectile driven into something.
in respect to Senna/Prost/Schumacher - what point are you trying to make - their championships were tarnished by their actions plus it sounds as if are you seriously suggesting that "it was ok for them therefore it must be ok for Vettel" - crap argument - and very old fashioned thinking.
Face it - this was totally unacceptable behaviour in what is a sport, compounded by Vettel inability to accept he was at fault, he still claims that LH should have got a penalty, a lack of sanction from Ferrari and a pathetic punishment from the FIA.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Face it; you're a little Hamilton fanboy and the big bad German tried to hurt him and he was not excluded so that LH can win easily the championship. That is so, so, so unfair!!!
Or maybe the fact that it has happened before yet doesn't warrant - as we speak, there may be appeals or reviews - a disqualification or a ban is because... it shouldn't?
I am no expert on the fine points of F1 rules and regulations. If SV had been black flagged I would have no problem with that. But the very people in charge of applying the rules decided it didn't. So suck it up and be a good sport, the ref may be an ass but he's the ref.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Great race enjoyed it.
Just wondering, do they all get free Rolexsss?
And if you bothered to read my posts above you will see that I said to BP that I would hold the same view REGARDLESS of who Vettel deliberately drove into, the fact it was Hamilton is irrelevant.
What Vettel did was wrong. The stewards reviewed the data and video and punished him accordingly.
So please share your wealth of knowledge and tell us who you think was to blame?
The stewards have examined the data and determined that Hamilton did nothing wrong. They have also determined that Vettel deliberately drove into Hamiton's car. Yet when Vettel was asked about the incident after the race he pretended he had no idea what he'd done wrong and didn't even have the decency to admit he'd made a mistake and behaved like an idiot.
In the light of the FACTS above, you accuse Hamilton fans of being prejudiced?! "Pot", "kettle" and "black" are the words which come to mind! Your ill-advised and uninformed prejudices on this and other threads are quite pathetic.
The one good thing to come from all this is if you carry out your "threat" to not waste words on this thread. Please let it be true that you won't spoil any more F1 discussion on here with your ridiculous and biased posts. That would truly make my day.
Great race. Yes it was chaotic and farcical but I couldn't take my eyes off of it so surely it's is good for F1 to have a race like this every so often? Having watched the F2 race on Saturday I expected some chaos in the F1 race but not quite that much!
To me the timing and length of the penalty given to Vettel seemed very convientient in that it meant the on track battle between Hamilton and himself would continue. I do sometimes think F1 stewarding decisions are influenced by the desire to keep the show going when they should be about enforcing consistent penalties.
Ultimately Vettel blatantly drove in his championship rival, surely the punishment for that needs to set an clear example that it is unacceptable to do so?
I remember watching a Formula Ford (or whatever they call it now) race at Silverstone a couple of years ago where a driver deliberately crashed into his championship rival behind the safety car and ended up getting a 2 year ban. Admittedly it was a worse incident than this but surely Vettel should at least have had some points taken away?
Last edited by watchcollector1; 26th June 2017 at 10:11.
Back to name calling - how tedious.
Yes I am a LH "fanboy", I never suggested I was anything else, however what Vettel did was wrong, irrespective of who the other driver was. The FIA need to take action to ensure that this sort of behavior is NEVER repeated and I am talking just talking about Vettel.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The harping on has killed the thread for me.
@BP; I have raced motorbikes and cars on closed circuits for 23 years. Got myself a medal in the IoM TT and a rostrum on the old scary Salzburgring to name but two. Done some more years of unduro and still hobby rally. The amount of totally deluded and unfounded opinionated nonsense spouted here is just too much like the Brexit threads. Good luck with it BP; I appreciate you valour and info
Oh dear, grown men squabbling and name calling like children,
Good job
There's a certain irony in you saying that after your constant harping in the last two F1 threads.
Facts:
1) According to the stewards and telemetry Lewis neither braked hard nor accelerated hard but maintained constant speed consistent with the previous two safety car restarts at the same point.
2) The penalty given to Vettel indicates the stewards consider him to be in the wrong.
3) I am a Lewis Hamilton fan.
4) I'm also a racing and F1 fan.
Opinion(s):
1) The subsequent penalty (points on licence) suggest the stewards may have felt they were too lenient or further review after the race indicated something we didn't see.
2) The penalty was lenient considering other penalties handed out for lesser infringements.
3) The FIA talking about WDC standings smacks of a managed championship and sets a dangerous precedent for future infringements with other drivers.
4) When placed under pressure Vettel doesn't react well.
5) Allowing cars to race with huge swathes of bodywork dropping all over the track (causing the safety cars that lead to this particular issue) wasn't penalised/managed by the FIA but a loose headrest necessitates a pit stop costing Lewis the win. Punishing Seb straight after just smacks of face saving by the FIA to deflect the very controversy it now faces.
It's not necessarily that it could be a danger to other drivers. Looking at it from a different perspective, what if Lewis had a huge accident and received injuries as a direct result of the headrest being loose and therefore unable to do the job it was designed to do? Surely the stewards had no choice but to instruct the team to bring him in and sort it?
I don't disagree with you at all, it was the right thing to do and equally a piece of bodywork from a damaged car (and some seemed to be carrying more damage than a broken front wing end plate yesterday) could come away and injure another driver, or cause the driver to lose control resulting in his own or someone else's injury.
Consistency is really what's needed. Consistently.
Agree 100%. Different stewards every race doesn't help.
Bye, you'll be missed like a pungent case of genital warts.
Can you image the uproar from the Hamilton haters if it Lewis had deliberately crashed into Seb? They'd be calling for his licence to be taken away!
I do get the impression the FIA are dropping the ball with the Baku circuit. Last year there were numerous issues with the track & elements such as kerbs & gutters, to the point where F2 qualifying couldn't go ahead. This year it's clear the standard of marshalling was unacceptably poor (cf the fire in the Renault which took far too long to attend to properly & reports of substantial damage being caused to cars while they were being removed) & it seems that there aren't enough track access points or cranes to remove stopped vehicles. Watching the marshalls try & get on track was painful as they had to struggle though the fence & drop down onto the track. It's reported Whiting was very unhappy with the time it took to remove a car on the Saturday.
Why is this? Hopefully it's nothing to do with an inability/unwillingness to stand up to a promoter whose paying a very substantial amount of money into the F1 coffers.
I understand a street circuit has many constraints compared to one designed in the open. And yes marshalling was what it was, and there was too many car-walls interactions.
I genuinely don't like this circuit.
But the cars were 3s quicker than last year, there were many, many overtakings on at least 2 different parts of the track and it made for one of the most interesting races in F1 in a long time.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Then why not contribute your reasoned and considered rebuttals rather than standing at the sideline throwing stones at those who hold a different view to you?
So to harp some more :)
Only the most myopic of Vettel 'fanboys' can possibly defend his actions or not see that his 'penalty' was rather lenient given the facts.
A simple question: Under what circumstances can it ever be acceptable to deliberately drive into an opponent?
Surely the answer must be, 'never.'
That being the case, the appropriate penalty for such an action should surely be disqualification (as a start point with extra sanctions available if warranted). That it wasn't applied in this case is rather mystifying especially given the available information that clearly supports the action being deliberate.
Any driver deliberately driving into another should arguably receive a black flag, regardless of the outcome or impact upon himself, others or the spectacle itself. I would suggest that there should be no place for sentiment or politics in such a decision which should be applied to all equally without fear or favour. That it wasn't is a rather damning reflection on those involved IMHO.*
jeff
*I do, however, fully recognise the caveat that the F1 world is probably as far removed from reality as it's possible to be, so expecting such simple concepts to prevail is a little fanciful, but one can dream :)
Well it might make for an interesting next drivers meeting: "anyone who deliberately drives into another car gets black flagged, except for you four at the top of the WDC list, you crack on".
I'm not sure who would have leant on the stewards to consider any "political" issues, if indeed that was the case. In the old days there might have been a candidate but the LM chaps don't seem to be the sort to get involved. Surely the days of Ferrari International Assistance aren't back are they?
Cheers. Interesting how you don't pick up these little details (and in F1 it is always the little details!). For anyone else interested I found the article http://scarbsf1.com/?p=3180 I note that unless the foam colour has altered they were actually using the lower temp pink Confor CF42 foam for ambient temps below 30C. It is a blue foam, Confor CF45 for temps above 30C. The way the article reads is that the specs around this part have not really altered since they mandated it. So even though it is 2013 written I guess it is still the same.
Last edited by reecie; 26th June 2017 at 13:10.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote