planetf1.com

For me,

Bottas, Hulkenberg & Alonso

Bottas I suppose

I'd like to say Hulk but he should have copped a worse penalty than just 5 secs. Stewarding gone wrong again

What a boring race.

Alonso, Grosjean.
Wehrlein was good as well. Bottas, of course.

Disappointing: Stroll.

Bottas, Alonso and Wehrlein for me.

Stroll was appallingly bad today, Williams will be vying with Torro Rosso for worst driver line up next year based on todays showing.

Bottas, he owned sector 3....

A fairly easy one for me today: Bottas, Hulkenberg and Alonso.

mcdo wrote:Bottas I suppose

I'd like to say Hulk but he should have copped a worse penalty than just 5 secs. Stewarding gone wrong again

This. Hulk basically cheated and gained a position with a move that wasn't even remotely legal. Then gets a 5s "penalty" which, given that he was comfortably quicker than Perez, was no penalty at all. I don't know if it's incompetent stewarding or crappy rules, but it's a farce nonetheless

Going to go with Alonso. Thought he did a really good job today

It's hard to pick a standout performance from such a dull, dreary race. I'll pick Alonso.

Bottas,Alonso and Seb maybe, 3rd choice is tricky as I can't give it to Hulk. Seb seemed to crush Kimi and make no mistakes so I'll give him a shout.

Zoue wrote:

mcdo wrote:Bottas I suppose

I'd like to say Hulk but he should have copped a worse penalty than just 5 secs. Stewarding gone wrong again

This. Hulk basically cheated and gained a position with a move that wasn't even remotely legal. Then gets a 5s "penalty" which, given that he was comfortably quicker than Perez, was no penalty at all. I don't know if it's incompetent stewarding or crappy rules, but it's a farce nonetheless

I agree. Hulk deliberatly corrupted the race. I think it should be a blug flag ASAP + a 5 second penalty. No 5 second penalty if they give the position back instantly. This will deter chancers.

Dull race.

Can we give it to everyone but Stroll and Magnussen?

Bottas, Alonso and Wherlein for me.
Bottas was pretty much error less and survived constant pressure from Lewis.
Alonso finding a way to get by Massa was great,
Wherlein beat 3 faster cars today. By all accounts a great job.

But it was such a boring race otherwise. Hamilton mentioned in the green room that they should change the layout. I concur.

kleefton wrote:Bottas, Alonso and Wherlein for me.
Bottas was pretty much error less and survived constant pressure from Lewis.
Alonso finding a way to get by Massa was great,
Wherlein beat 3 faster cars today. By all accounts a great job.

But it was such a boring race otherwise. Hamilton mentioned in the green room that they should change the layout. I concur.

This probably could be the most boring race of 2017.

Bottas did a great job to keep ahead and Vettel was miles ahead of his team mate, but neither of them were really threatened at all during the race. For me Alonso and Grosjean did a great job today, no mistakes from either that I remember and both managing to get past a Williams which should've been faster on paper than them.

UnlikeUday wrote:

kleefton wrote:Bottas, Alonso and Wherlein for me.
Bottas was pretty much error less and survived constant pressure from Lewis.
Alonso finding a way to get by Massa was great,
Wherlein beat 3 faster cars today. By all accounts a great job.

But it was such a boring race otherwise. Hamilton mentioned in the green room that they should change the layout. I concur.

This probably could be the most boring race of 2017.

I remember someone saying on this forum saying that they found Bottas boring as a driver. It does seem that he's won on 2 tracks that people seem to conciser to be dull. Maybe the track suits what some think of him I don't think any of this. I hardly ever find a race boring and I like Bottas. It just seems that people like him are quiet and often don't speak much. About the tracks, I don't think that much of this one, but I've not understood the criticism Russia gets.

For me,my vote was a default. There was some exciting stuff going on further back, but created by mistakes. And for the top finishers, none of them really did anything noteworthy. But Bottas did what he had to, and won. So he gets my vote because no one else had what I consider a "good race".

I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

I voted for Alonso and Bottas.

Exediron wrote:I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

Well, since you ask, Hulks move was illegal and it shouldn't even be allowed to stand. They should have decided within the lap, forcing him to serve it within 3 laps as is per regulations, which would have left him with a suboptimal strategy (running very long on one set of (the hardest?) tyres, or stopping again and running SS-US).

But then I also think Verstappen's move in Austin was illegal and rightly punished.

Does my answer satisfy you?

Kimi gets 4 votes!

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

Well, since you ask, Hulks move was illegal and it shouldn't even be allowed to stand. They should have decided within the lap, forcing him to serve it within 3 laps as is per regulations, which would have left him with a suboptimal strategy (running very long on one set of (the hardest?) tyres, or stopping again and running SS-US).

But then I also think Verstappen's move in Austin was illegal and rightly punished.

Does my answer satisfy you?

I'm surprised more is not being made about Hulkenberg's move, tbh. On Skysports they are even rating him 9/10, when that's as blatant a cheating move as I've ever witnessed. The only other article I can see is on Autosport, where they are just highlighting how upset Force India are. But no criticism of the stewards, or the rules. Nothing.

I think it's beyond poor that a team/driver may choose to break the rules as a strategic choice and effectively get zero punishment for it. It's unlikely that Hulk would have had the pace to pass Perez on track, so he directly benefited from sticking his fingers up at the rules. It's a complete farce

Zoue wrote:

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

Well, since you ask, Hulks move was illegal and it shouldn't even be allowed to stand. They should have decided within the lap, forcing him to serve it within 3 laps as is per regulations, which would have left him with a suboptimal strategy (running very long on one set of (the hardest?) tyres, or stopping again and running SS-US).

But then I also think Verstappen's move in Austin was illegal and rightly punished.

Does my answer satisfy you?

I'm surprised more is not being made about Hulkenberg's move, tbh. On Skysports they are even rating him 9/10, when that's as blatant a cheating move as I've ever witnessed. The only other article I can see is on Autosport, where they are just highlighting how upset Force India are. But no criticism of the stewards, or the rules. Nothing.

I think it's beyond poor that a team/driver may choose to break the rules as a strategic choice and effectively get zero punishment for it. It's unlikely that Hulk would have had the pace to pass Perez on track, so he directly benefited from sticking his fingers up at the rules. It's a complete farce

Exactly this, all of this. He might have had a chance on the undercut, but they way it was done was just baffling.

From now on, any faster driver unable to pass can shortcut a part of the track of his choosing and be "punished" with a 5 second penalty. How ridiculous is that?

Zoue wrote:

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

Well, since you ask, Hulks move was illegal and it shouldn't even be allowed to stand. They should have decided within the lap, forcing him to serve it within 3 laps as is per regulations, which would have left him with a suboptimal strategy (running very long on one set of (the hardest?) tyres, or stopping again and running SS-US).

But then I also think Verstappen's move in Austin was illegal and rightly punished.

Does my answer satisfy you?

I'm surprised more is not being made about Hulkenberg's move, tbh. On Skysports they are even rating him 9/10, when that's as blatant a cheating move as I've ever witnessed. The only other article I can see is on Autosport, where they are just highlighting how upset Force India are. But no criticism of the stewards, or the rules. Nothing.

I think it's beyond poor that a team/driver may choose to break the rules as a strategic choice and effectively get zero punishment for it. It's unlikely that Hulk would have had the pace to pass Perez on track, so he directly benefited from sticking his fingers up at the rules. It's a complete farce

Imagine if Hamilton passed Bottas this way in yesterday's race.

Herb Tarlik wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

Well, since you ask, Hulks move was illegal and it shouldn't even be allowed to stand. They should have decided within the lap, forcing him to serve it within 3 laps as is per regulations, which would have left him with a suboptimal strategy (running very long on one set of (the hardest?) tyres, or stopping again and running SS-US).

But then I also think Verstappen's move in Austin was illegal and rightly punished.

Does my answer satisfy you?

I'm surprised more is not being made about Hulkenberg's move, tbh. On Skysports they are even rating him 9/10, when that's as blatant a cheating move as I've ever witnessed. The only other article I can see is on Autosport, where they are just highlighting how upset Force India are. But no criticism of the stewards, or the rules. Nothing.

I think it's beyond poor that a team/driver may choose to break the rules as a strategic choice and effectively get zero punishment for it. It's unlikely that Hulk would have had the pace to pass Perez on track, so he directly benefited from sticking his fingers up at the rules. It's a complete farce

Imagine if Hamilton passed Bottas this way in yesterday's race.

The internets would melt!

mds wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

Well, since you ask, Hulks move was illegal and it shouldn't even be allowed to stand. They should have decided within the lap, forcing him to serve it within 3 laps as is per regulations, which would have left him with a suboptimal strategy (running very long on one set of (the hardest?) tyres, or stopping again and running SS-US).

But then I also think Verstappen's move in Austin was illegal and rightly punished.

Does my answer satisfy you?

I'm surprised more is not being made about Hulkenberg's move, tbh. On Skysports they are even rating him 9/10, when that's as blatant a cheating move as I've ever witnessed. The only other article I can see is on Autosport, where they are just highlighting how upset Force India are. But no criticism of the stewards, or the rules. Nothing.

I think it's beyond poor that a team/driver may choose to break the rules as a strategic choice and effectively get zero punishment for it. It's unlikely that Hulk would have had the pace to pass Perez on track, so he directly benefited from sticking his fingers up at the rules. It's a complete farce

Exactly this, all of this. He might have had a chance on the undercut, but they way it was done was just baffling.

From now on, any faster driver unable to pass can shortcut a part of the track of his choosing and be "punished" with a 5 second penalty. How ridiculous is that?

Exactly my thinking, too. If they estimate they can get at least 5s up the road then it's a no-brainer. And it was a pretty open and shut case, tbh. I think both the rules and the stewards are at fault here

Zoue wrote:

mcdo wrote:Bottas I suppose

I'd like to say Hulk but he should have copped a worse penalty than just 5 secs. Stewarding gone wrong again

This. Hulk basically cheated and gained a position with a move that wasn't even remotely legal. Then gets a 5s "penalty" which, given that he was comfortably quicker than Perez, was no penalty at all. I don't know if it's incompetent stewarding or crappy rules, but it's a farce nonetheless

Crappy rules.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mcdo wrote:Bottas I suppose

I'd like to say Hulk but he should have copped a worse penalty than just 5 secs. Stewarding gone wrong again

This. Hulk basically cheated and gained a position with a move that wasn't even remotely legal. Then gets a 5s "penalty" which, given that he was comfortably quicker than Perez, was no penalty at all. I don't know if it's incompetent stewarding or crappy rules, but it's a farce nonetheless

Crappy rules.

No, stewards as well. Had they decided upon the obvious penalty immediately after the incident, instead of after almost 20(!!) minutes, he would have had to pit to serve his penalty at a very inconvenient time with regards to strategy - lap 4 or 5 at the very latest, which would have left him with either 1 set of tyres to do an almost entire race on, or with running a 2-stop strategy. Both cases would have at least given Perez a chance to regain the position.

Herb Tarlik wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

Well, since you ask, Hulks move was illegal and it shouldn't even be allowed to stand. They should have decided within the lap, forcing him to serve it within 3 laps as is per regulations, which would have left him with a suboptimal strategy (running very long on one set of (the hardest?) tyres, or stopping again and running SS-US).

But then I also think Verstappen's move in Austin was illegal and rightly punished.

Does my answer satisfy you?

I'm surprised more is not being made about Hulkenberg's move, tbh. On Skysports they are even rating him 9/10, when that's as blatant a cheating move as I've ever witnessed. The only other article I can see is on Autosport, where they are just highlighting how upset Force India are. But no criticism of the stewards, or the rules. Nothing.

I think it's beyond poor that a team/driver may choose to break the rules as a strategic choice and effectively get zero punishment for it. It's unlikely that Hulk would have had the pace to pass Perez on track, so he directly benefited from sticking his fingers up at the rules. It's a complete farce

Imagine if Hamilton passed Bottas this way in yesterday's race.

What the hell does this have to do with Hamilton?

Seriously, the season is over and Hamilton won the WDC. Time to take off the hair shirts, get them cleaned, and put them away until March.

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mcdo wrote:Bottas I suppose

I'd like to say Hulk but he should have copped a worse penalty than just 5 secs. Stewarding gone wrong again

This. Hulk basically cheated and gained a position with a move that wasn't even remotely legal. Then gets a 5s "penalty" which, given that he was comfortably quicker than Perez, was no penalty at all. I don't know if it's incompetent stewarding or crappy rules, but it's a farce nonetheless

Crappy rules.

No, stewards as well. Had they decided upon the obvious penalty immediately after the incident, instead of after almost 20(!!) minutes, he would have had to pit to serve his penalty at a very inconvenient time with regards to strategy - lap 4 or 5 at the very latest, which would have left him with either 1 set of tyres to do an almost entire race on, or with running a 2-stop strategy. Both cases would have at least given Perez a chance to regain the position.

The rules don't dictate on what lap a driver has to serve their penalty, they pit at their own convenience, the stewards applied the penalty as per the rules, it's the rules that need changing.

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mcdo wrote:Bottas I suppose

I'd like to say Hulk but he should have copped a worse penalty than just 5 secs. Stewarding gone wrong again

This. Hulk basically cheated and gained a position with a move that wasn't even remotely legal. Then gets a 5s "penalty" which, given that he was comfortably quicker than Perez, was no penalty at all. I don't know if it's incompetent stewarding or crappy rules, but it's a farce nonetheless

Crappy rules.

No, stewards as well. Had they decided upon the obvious penalty immediately after the incident, instead of after almost 20(!!) minutes, he would have had to pit to serve his penalty at a very inconvenient time with regards to strategy - lap 4 or 5 at the very latest, which would have left him with either 1 set of tyres to do an almost entire race on, or with running a 2-stop strategy. Both cases would have at least given Perez a chance to regain the position.

The rules don't dictate on what lap a driver has to serve their penalty, they pit at their own convenience, the stewards applied the penalty as per the rules, it's the rules that need changing.

Sure, but if the stewards had acted in a prompt manner then they could have forced him to return the place

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote: No, stewards as well. Had they decided upon the obvious penalty immediately after the incident, instead of after almost 20(!!) minutes, he would have had to pit to serve his penalty at a very inconvenient time with regards to strategy - lap 4 or 5 at the very latest, which would have left him with either 1 set of tyres to do an almost entire race on, or with running a 2-stop strategy. Both cases would have at least given Perez a chance to regain the position.

The rules don't dictate on what lap a driver has to serve their penalty, they pit at their own convenience, the stewards applied the penalty as per the rules, it's the rules that need changing.

I think the point being made was that if the penalty had been to give the place back, instead of 5 second pit delay, and forced to do so within 3 laps it would've been more penalizing, and more fitting for the transgression, than it was.

edit: Messed up the quotes

RaggedMan wrote:

Herb Tarlik wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

Well, since you ask, Hulks move was illegal and it shouldn't even be allowed to stand. They should have decided within the lap, forcing him to serve it within 3 laps as is per regulations, which would have left him with a suboptimal strategy (running very long on one set of (the hardest?) tyres, or stopping again and running SS-US).

But then I also think Verstappen's move in Austin was illegal and rightly punished.

Does my answer satisfy you?

I'm surprised more is not being made about Hulkenberg's move, tbh. On Skysports they are even rating him 9/10, when that's as blatant a cheating move as I've ever witnessed. The only other article I can see is on Autosport, where they are just highlighting how upset Force India are. But no criticism of the stewards, or the rules. Nothing.

I think it's beyond poor that a team/driver may choose to break the rules as a strategic choice and effectively get zero punishment for it. It's unlikely that Hulk would have had the pace to pass Perez on track, so he directly benefited from sticking his fingers up at the rules. It's a complete farce

Imagine if Hamilton passed Bottas this way in yesterday's race.

What the hell does this have to do with Hamilton?

If Hamilton passed Bottas to win the race with an illegal pass, that would really shine a much more powerful light on how asinine Hulkenberg's move was. It is profoundly wrong that he was allowed to keep his ill gotten position.

RaggedMan wrote: Seriously, the season is over and Hamilton won the WDC. Time to take off the hair shirts, get them cleaned, and put them away until March.

Really, try to improve your reading comprehension. I was using Hamilton as an example, not advocating for him at all.

pokerman wrote: The rules don't dictate on what lap a driver has to serve their penalty, they pit at their own convenience, the stewards applied the penalty as per the rules, it's the rules that need changing.

OK, in case of 5s and 10s penalty that is indeed true (had read the rules too fast).

However, they were still at liberty to impose a 10s stop-and-go or a drivethrough. For something as blatant as this, they could have certainly given him a drivethrough.

So still crappy stewarding as well. If you're going to wait 20 minutes, then at least make it so that it has an impact.

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote: The rules don't dictate on what lap a driver has to serve their penalty, they pit at their own convenience, the stewards applied the penalty as per the rules, it's the rules that need changing.

OK, in case of 5s and 10s penalty that is indeed true (had read the rules too fast).

However, they were still at liberty to impose a 10s stop-and-go or a drivethrough. For something as blatant as this, they could have certainly given him a drivethrough.

So still crappy stewarding as well. If you're going to wait 20 minutes, then at least make it so that it has an impact.

Herb Tarlik wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

Herb Tarlik wrote: If Hamilton passed Bottas to win the race with an illegal pass, that would really shine a much more powerful light on how asinine Hulkenberg's move was. It is profoundly wrong that he was allowed to keep his ill gotten position.

RaggedMan wrote: Seriously, the season is over and Hamilton won the WDC. Time to take off the hair shirts, get them cleaned, and put them away until March.

Really, try to improve your reading comprehension. I was using Hamilton as an example, not advocating for him at all.

My reading comprehension is fine. A more appropriate example of a recent event that actually happened had already been brought up with the Verstappen move in Austin so there was no need to bring in a hypothetical case where Hamilton might have done something similar. Absolutely pointless especially in light of the face that nobody is saying that what Hulk did was acceptable nor that the punishment was fair or right.

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

Well, since you ask, Hulks move was illegal and it shouldn't even be allowed to stand. They should have decided within the lap, forcing him to serve it within 3 laps as is per regulations, which would have left him with a suboptimal strategy (running very long on one set of (the hardest?) tyres, or stopping again and running SS-US).

But then I also think Verstappen's move in Austin was illegal and rightly punished.

Does my answer satisfy you?

Okay, fair enough - but I know a lot of Verstappen fans (and the driver himself) who still defend the move. I'll give you credit for being reasonable about it, though.

I think they should have ordered Hulk to yield the place immediately, and given him a drive-through penalty if he didn't. The drivers need to realize that cheating won't result in a gain for them, or even just a negligible effect; it needs to destroy their race. As it stands, anyone can now overtake off track at will providing they feel confident of building at least a 5-second gap - and over the course of a Grand Prix, that's pretty easy with a faster car!

They gave Max the 5 seconds because it was the end of the race and it had the effect of yielding the position to Kimi, but it shouldn't have become a precedent for illegal passes. If that's the way they want to do it, they should have waited until the end of the race and given Hulk 15, but that would still be much sillier than just making him yield the position immediately.

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote: The rules don't dictate on what lap a driver has to serve their penalty, they pit at their own convenience, the stewards applied the penalty as per the rules, it's the rules that need changing.

OK, in case of 5s and 10s penalty that is indeed true (had read the rules too fast).

However, they were still at liberty to impose a 10s stop-and-go or a drivethrough. For something as blatant as this, they could have certainly given him a drivethrough.

So still crappy stewarding as well. If you're going to wait 20 minutes, then at least make it so that it has an impact.

My point being that the rules should be written like that in the first place.

Do the stewards not have the option to simply demand that a driver concedes an illegally-gained position? It's a long time ago but I'm pretty sure that Alonso had to do this in Japan (2005?). It would require a pretty immediate decision but, in Sunday's race, I'm pretty sure that a decision could have been arrived at more-or-less immediately. As mentioned a number of times here, a poor example of stewarding.

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote: The rules don't dictate on what lap a driver has to serve their penalty, they pit at their own convenience, the stewards applied the penalty as per the rules, it's the rules that need changing.

OK, in case of 5s and 10s penalty that is indeed true (had read the rules too fast).

However, they were still at liberty to impose a 10s stop-and-go or a drivethrough. For something as blatant as this, they could have certainly given him a drivethrough.

So still crappy stewarding as well. If you're going to wait 20 minutes, then at least make it so that it has an impact.

My point being that the rules should be written like that in the first place.

Like what? Stewards can choose from a few different penalties at their own discretion and so they had the power to undo what happened. They didn't, so I feel part of the blame is with them.

Exediron wrote:

mds wrote:

Exediron wrote:I assume Verstappen fans think Hulk's move was okay because it was exciting?

Well, since you ask, Hulks move was illegal and it shouldn't even be allowed to stand. They should have decided within the lap, forcing him to serve it within 3 laps as is per regulations, which would have left him with a suboptimal strategy (running very long on one set of (the hardest?) tyres, or stopping again and running SS-US).

But then I also think Verstappen's move in Austin was illegal and rightly punished.

Does my answer satisfy you?

Okay, fair enough - but I know a lot of Verstappen fans (and the driver himself) who still defend the move. I'll give you credit for being reasonable about it, though.

I think they should have ordered Hulk to yield the place immediately, and given him a drive-through penalty if he didn't. The drivers need to realize that cheating won't result in a gain for them, or even just a negligible effect; it needs to destroy their race. As it stands, anyone can now overtake off track at will providing they feel confident of building at least a 5-second gap - and over the course of a Grand Prix, that's pretty easy with a faster car!

They gave Max the 5 seconds because it was the end of the race and it had the effect of yielding the position to Kimi, but it shouldn't have become a precedent for illegal passes. If that's the way they want to do it, they should have waited until the end of the race and given Hulk 15, but that would still be much sillier than just making him yield the position immediately.

Agree with all of this. Especially the bolded part is what is most baffling about all of this. Heck if a driver does this at the start when everybody is bunched up, he can probably gain a few places like that.

On the topic of Verstappen fans: you do have a point. Believe me, I follow some Dutch pages and a lot of (especially) Dutch fans will defend him beyond all reason. Even for me as a fan their behavior is very irritating.