Originally Posted by
JeremyO
If that report from Autosport is correct then it puts the decision regarding the penalty beyond all doubt, tantamount to Vettels move on Hamilton at Baku 2017.
From that article:
The stewards examined slow motion footage of Vettel's actions from the moment that he had regained control and started steering his car - and felt the evidence showed that he could have made different choices that would have been within the rules.
The footage clearly captures Vettel correcting an oversteer moment as he rejoins the track - which is shown by a sharp steering wheel movement to the right.
Shortly after that, Vettel has sorted 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, cutting off the route that Hamilton would have taken had he had clear space.
If Vettel had "sorted the oversteer" and if his car was "under control" then I have to agree with the stewards' decision. However, is a suggestion that he was under control enough? The telemetry from the car (accelerometers etc) should be able to supply evidence to back up that suggestion...or otherwise. Was there enough time to look at the data and did the stewards do so? Are they expert enough to be able to interpret such date by themselves or do they rely on the teams to explain it to them when giving evidence?
The stewards wrote that Vettel was "Involved in an incident as defined by Article 38.1 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations" (pdf link). That article says "After review it shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide whether or not to proceed with an investigation." I'm in no doubt that there was an incident.
Then Article 38.2 a) continues:
It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide if any driver involved in an Incident should be penalised.
Unless it is clear to the stewards that a driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for an Incident no penalty will be imposed.
I have to hope that the stewards have enough evidence to show the appeal that Vettel was clearly at fault.
Then there is the last paragraph of Article 27.3 that says:
Should a car leave the track the driver may re‐join, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. At the absolute discretion of the race director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he gained by leaving the track.
Why did the stewards reject this option?
So many questions...