planetf1.com

Banana Man wrote:

Prema wrote:
You actually needed not to involve the other car at all in this attempt to tell us that the stewards do not issue a penalty to a driver for simply making an error while driving his car.

No, making an error in itself and for itself is not an offense. But being responsible for eventual collision. And in your hypothetical example, besides a contact between the two (believe it or not, such happens in a race... always exciting to see it) there was nothing for stewards to investigate - nothing really happened there worth of investigation. Nothing to be classified as "collision" really. And if they did investigate it (being bored perhaps, nothing else to do) then the only reasonable outcome would be "no further action required".

That's my point. It is a collision but not one which should be penalised. Therefore the stewards do take into account the impact on the other car.

It's a "collision" that shouldn't be investigated to start with!

But of course there got to be some significant physical impact (= damage) on the cars if to classify the contact between the cars as a collision worth of investigating! It is the obvious question of technically defining the contact as an actual crash/collision, and in your hypothetical scenario such did not really happen hence nothing worth of investigating not to speak of a penalty.

And while the stewards got to use the discriminating power of their intelligence in order to come to the necessary evaluation whether a contact between the two racing cars can be classified as a collision/crash worth of investigation or not, by taking into the account the degree of the physical impact on the cars involved (how otherwise would they?) they still do not take in to the account its impact on the car's lost of positions in the race or the driver's lost of WDC points. That is not how a "collision" or "crash" is being defined. Or is it now? One never knows...

Blake wrote:Oh, by all means, let us start penalizing every mistake made by a driver to reflect the result of the driver(s) affected. Let us discourage all risk taking by drivers for fear they are going to receive some draconian punishment because so and who's tire got cut. Perhaps we should wait until the end of the season to see how that cut tire and resulting finish affected the WDC. And let teams sue for WCC ADJUSTMENTS for how that cut tire affect that Chase as well.

This is beyond ridiculous. Do some of you complaining the most really want the steward to adjust the results post-race to maker sure driver B is ahead of the offending driver A? What part of racing incident of minor unintentional error do you not understand? Let's be honest... Most of time, the complainers are more upset that driver A didn't lose as many positions as they hoped he would in regards to their driver/team.

Well colour me astonished.

mds wrote:

Banana Man wrote: I've never said a penalty should ENSURE a driver finished behind another but I do think it should be proportional to negative impact on the victim's race. In this case, doing an entire lap with a flat tyre and the rest of the race with a damaged floor is not proportional to a 5 second penalty.

The negative impact on the victim's race was never that of an entire lap with a flat tyre as the SC was there - the effective negative impact that was directly measurable was being at the back of the pack.

Floor damage would only be apparent after the race.

IMO a drive through to be served within 3 laps would have been fair.

Really now? For a minor unintentional late-braking? Do you hate racing, do you just want to make sure drivers do not go for anything ever anymore?

Christ chocolate fudge cake, a drive through for a light unintentional tap.

See above. I'm not talking about engineering an entire race to put Vettel behind Bottas. I'm talking about penalties being proportional.

See above. You cannot assess impact until the end of the race. You're advocating a drive-through within 3 laps. You do not make sense.

I don't remember discussing this point in China but since you asked, that penalty didn't strike me as being unjust. For a start Max got 10 seconds, so double the punishment. Maybe I'd have given Max a drive through as it probably cost Vettel a bit more than that overall.

Max's "transgression" (if you will) was also far worse than Vettel's, instead of a minor lock-up while being boxed in and going into T1 he actually had ample room being given by Vettel and overcooked it a lot more.

Okay, for the sake of charity I will allow your assertion that an unrelated safety car is an acceptable mitigating factor and that the stewards didn't know there was damage (even though there invariably is with a rear puncture flailing around for an entire lap) but....

I really don't get how you can call that a light, unintentional tap and basically ignore the puncture, which put Bottas to the back of the field, whilst at the same time claiming this is a lot worse...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR3Ls5tcp5A

About 33 seconds in for the onboard of Max. No puncture, Vettel only drops 3 places and probably loses 10 seconds, how is it worse?

Banana Man wrote:

mds wrote:Max's "transgression" (if you will) was also far worse than Vettel's, instead of a minor lock-up while being boxed in and going into T1 he actually had ample room being given by Vettel and overcooked it a lot more.

I really don't get how you can call that a light, unintentional tap and basically ignore the puncture, which put Bottas to the back of the field, whilst at the same time claiming this is a lot worse...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR3Ls5tcp5A

About 33 seconds in for the onboard of Max. No puncture, Vettel only drops 3 places and probably loses 10 seconds, how is it worse?

It's worse because it's so unforced. Vettel had very few options: he got a better start than the car in front, was boxed in by a car alongside, and locked his brakes at least in part due to the dirty air of Bottas turning in front of him.

Max, on the other hand, had all the options in the world, and he was going up against a car that wasn't even really fighting him. He locked his brakes by pure mistake, and clumsily hit the side of Vettel's car.

As an example of driver error, it was far worse.

Banana Man wrote:and that the stewards didn't know there was damage (even though there invariably is with a rear puncture flailing around for an entire lap)

They might suspect damage, but not assess it to its full extent. Impossible to know, so impossible to construct a penalty on the exact impact right after the collision.

I really don't get how you can call that a light, unintentional tap

Because it was a light, unintentional tap.

For the rest, see Exediron.

Banana Man wrote: Okay, for the sake of charity I will allow your assertion that an unrelated safety car is an acceptable mitigating factor and that the stewards didn't know there was damage (even though there invariably is with a rear puncture flailing around for an entire lap) but....

I really don't get how you can call that a light, unintentional tap and basically ignore the puncture, which put Bottas to the back of the field, whilst at the same time claiming this is a lot worse...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR3Ls5tcp5A

About 33 seconds in for the onboard of Max. No puncture, Vettel only drops 3 places and probably loses 10 seconds, how is it worse?

This being already answered, I thought to rather bring in another instance where I expect that all those people who so strongly advocate here that the level of punishment for Vettel's offense be determined according to the outcome/impact for the involved driver: Baku'17. Vettel pulled along Hamilton and bumped the wheals together. A zero damage, a zero consequence to Hamilton. Yet Vettel received 10-sec stop-and-go. And the fury hit the sky in the weeks after... how hard shall Vettel still be punished for hitting Hamilton, all from black-fagging the race to how many race bans to taking him before the court, and whatever else.

It was the recklessness of the act itself, and not the severity of the impact on the other driver's standing in the race, that was under the evaluation. He got the said penalty for a manoeuvre that was deemed "potentially dangerous". Would you wish to argue now that the penalty was uncalled for? Since there was no impact for Hamilton's standing in the race, no penalty ought to be there.. right?
(now, now... hopefully that can not being open again for the consumption)

Zoue wrote: But teams could still use that to their advantage, choosing to e.g. cut the chicane at Monaco to get past another car, knowing that they have a greater chance to make up places in Canada.

This rule making is harder than it looks!

Good point, but of course the stewards would see that the gain was unusually high and with intent besides, so the grid penalty would be harsh also.

Exediron wrote: It's worse because it's so unforced. Vettel had very few options: he got a better start than the car in front, was boxed in by a car alongside, and locked his brakes at least in part due to the dirty air of Bottas turning in front of him.

Max, on the other hand, had all the options in the world, and he was going up against a car that wasn't even really fighting him. He locked his brakes by pure mistake, and clumsily hit the side of Vettel's car.

As an example of driver error, it was far worse.

You're just making stuff up now.

"Locked his brakes due to the dirty air of Bottas in front of him" - At no point in the run down to T1 was Vettel ever in the dirty air of Bottas. He tried to go in too tight and too fast on the inside of the corner, locked his front left and ran wide. Neither Mercedes did anything wrong.

Max DID NOT lock his brakes at all, watch the video. He went for a gap which was a bit too small and hit Vettel's sidepod much softer than the Vettel/Bottas incident.


Anyway, I've said all I can on this subject so I wont waste any more of our collective time. As for the people comparing this to deliberate collisions - Do me a favour, really?

Banana Man wrote: Anyway, I've said all I can on this subject so I wont waste any more of our collective time. As for the people comparing this to deliberate collisions - Do me a favour, really?

Well, all you said was essentially wrong. The fact is that the stewards try not to look at the consequence of an incident when evaluating it and deliberating over the eventual penalty. Period. Hence these calls for a harsher penalty for Vettel due to Bottas' misfortune of dropping last, are completely misplaced. If you wished to argue that the FIA should change their way of evaluating these incidents in the future, that would be another situation. But as it stands, you do not have a case.

As far as "comparing this to deliberate collisions", no. It is to tell that it is always the act itself that is being under the scrutiny in terms of how to eventually penalize it, not the consequence. Whether it had some consequence to the affected driver or not, that might have the impact in the case of a deliberate collision (if it be deemed so) but not in the case of committing a simple and rather common racing error of a late breaking. Let the racing be that - the racing.

Rockie wrote: With a drive thru penalty he would still have finished ahead of Bottas, its just Hamilton and his fans wanting more points.

or perhaps it's just Vettel fans who think he should get away with taking out another driver? He made the mistake, Bottas was a passenger - the end.

I believe in consistency regardless of the driver. If Lewis had done this mistake I expect him to get a penalty and likewise for any driver on the grid. People like you just want to throw the accusations of "oh Hamilton fans want penalties because it's Vettel!!!!".

Rubbish. Either scrap the rule book on these accidents or I expect harsh punishments for drivers who take out another one because of their own stupid mistake. The only reason why Vettel didn't suffer a bigger penalty was because it impacted his race. If not.... he may have got a harsher one.

Lewis has made plenty in his career and rightly so - got penalties or suffered heavily for them.

Teddy007 wrote:

Rockie wrote: With a drive thru penalty he would still have finished ahead of Bottas, its just Hamilton and his fans wanting more points.

or perhaps it's just Vettel fans who think he should get away with taking out another driver? He made the mistake, Bottas was a passenger - the end.

I believe in consistency regardless of the driver. If Lewis had done this mistake I expect him to get a penalty and likewise for any driver on the grid. People like you just want to throw the accusations of "oh Hamilton fans want penalties because it's Vettel!!!!".

Rubbish. Either scrap the rule book on these accidents or I expect harsh punishments for drivers who take out another one because of their own stupid mistake. The only reason why Vettel didn't suffer a bigger penalty was because it impacted his race. If not.... he may have got a harsher one.

Lewis has made plenty in his career and rightly so - got penalties or suffered heavily for them.

Vettel got a penalty for this as well, so what exactly is your argument?

Also yes I stand by Hamilton fans wanting extra punishment for Vettel so he can gain more points, as it all started from Hamilton and Mercedes that the punishment was inadequate.

Rockie wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

Rockie wrote: With a drive thru penalty he would still have finished ahead of Bottas, its just Hamilton and his fans wanting more points.

or perhaps it's just Vettel fans who think he should get away with taking out another driver? He made the mistake, Bottas was a passenger - the end.

I believe in consistency regardless of the driver. If Lewis had done this mistake I expect him to get a penalty and likewise for any driver on the grid. People like you just want to throw the accusations of "oh Hamilton fans want penalties because it's Vettel!!!!".

Rubbish. Either scrap the rule book on these accidents or I expect harsh punishments for drivers who take out another one because of their own stupid mistake. The only reason why Vettel didn't suffer a bigger penalty was because it impacted his race. If not.... he may have got a harsher one.

Lewis has made plenty in his career and rightly so - got penalties or suffered heavily for them.

Vettel got a penalty for this as well, so what exactly is your argument?

Also yes I stand by Hamilton fans wanting extra punishment for Vettel so he can gain more points, as it all started from Hamilton and Mercedes that the punishment was inadequate.

Think you'll find it all started when Vettel clipped the back of Bottas...

dompclarke wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

Rockie wrote: With a drive thru penalty he would still have finished ahead of Bottas, its just Hamilton and his fans wanting more points.

or perhaps it's just Vettel fans who think he should get away with taking out another driver? He made the mistake, Bottas was a passenger - the end.

I believe in consistency regardless of the driver. If Lewis had done this mistake I expect him to get a penalty and likewise for any driver on the grid. People like you just want to throw the accusations of "oh Hamilton fans want penalties because it's Vettel!!!!".

Rubbish. Either scrap the rule book on these accidents or I expect harsh punishments for drivers who take out another one because of their own stupid mistake. The only reason why Vettel didn't suffer a bigger penalty was because it impacted his race. If not.... he may have got a harsher one.


Lewis has made plenty in his career and rightly so - got penalties or suffered heavily for them.

Vettel got a penalty for this as well, so what exactly is your argument?

Also yes I stand by Hamilton fans wanting extra punishment for Vettel so he can gain more points, as it all started from Hamilton and Mercedes that the punishment was inadequate.

Think you'll find it all started when Vettel clipped the back of Bottas...

Maybe if you just slow down and read to comprehend than to reply, then you can understand my statement.

How many first lap incidents has Vettel been involved in since joining Ferrari?

Rockie wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

Rockie wrote: With a drive thru penalty he would still have finished ahead of Bottas, its just Hamilton and his fans wanting more points.

or perhaps it's just Vettel fans who think he should get away with taking out another driver? He made the mistake, Bottas was a passenger - the end.

I believe in consistency regardless of the driver. If Lewis had done this mistake I expect him to get a penalty and likewise for any driver on the grid. People like you just want to throw the accusations of "oh Hamilton fans want penalties because it's Vettel!!!!".

Rubbish. Either scrap the rule book on these accidents or I expect harsh punishments for drivers who take out another one because of their own stupid mistake. The only reason why Vettel didn't suffer a bigger penalty was because it impacted his race. If not.... he may have got a harsher one.


Lewis has made plenty in his career and rightly so - got penalties or suffered heavily for them.

Vettel got a penalty for this as well, so what exactly is your argument?

Also yes I stand by Hamilton fans wanting extra punishment for Vettel so he can gain more points, as it all started from Hamilton and Mercedes that the punishment was inadequate.

Think you'll find it all started when Vettel clipped the back of Bottas...

Maybe if you just slow down and read to comprehend than to reply, then you can understand my statement.

If you maybe slow down and think you'll realise I was taking the mick

edit:
To be honest I was first going to ask how it all started from Hamilton and Mercedes that the punishment was inadequate when I for one did wonder if it was enough (still undecided for what it's worth), but decided not to bother so as not to cause the sort of reaction you gave to my post anyway

davidheath461 wrote:How many first lap incidents has Vettel been involved in since joining Ferrari?

You follow him the closest, you tell us. Oh wait, no one cares.

Thing I did wonder when Vettel was en route to the pits was whether the FIA would get funny about him driving a damaged car back, especially as a couple of bits seemed to fly off.

Covalent wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:How many first lap incidents has Vettel been involved in since joining Ferrari?

You follow him the closest, you tell us. Oh wait, no one cares.

dompclarke wrote:Thing I did wonder when Vettel was en route to the pits was whether the FIA would get funny about him driving a damaged car back, especially as a couple of bits seemed to fly off.

Indeed!

Yellowbin74 wrote:I think a drive through would have been better.

There is some thought that it may be called as a first lap incident, but as it wasn't mid pack I think a penalty was fair.

There's no perfect scenario here, especially when the guy that caused the incident finishes in front of the guy he punted off.

So, Vettel gets the 5 sec penalty in France (causing a collision) and Verstappen get nothing (racing incident) and both "offenders" 'ruined' the other driver's race and finished ahead of the guy he punted......hmmm...Why did Verstappen not get a 5 sec penalty? He had to smash Kimi out the way to get through...

greatestF1mindever wrote:So, Vettel gets the 5 sec penalty in France (causing a collision) and Verstappen get nothing (racing incident) and both "offenders" 'ruined' the other driver's race and finished ahead of the guy he punted......hmmm...Why did Verstappen not get a 5 sec penalty? He had to smash Kimi out the way to get through...

Come now - I'm no Verstappen fan, but you have to admit the two aren't quite the same? Bottas lost out to every single driver, had to pit, and had damage that affected him for the whole race to boot. Kimi lost out to one driver, lost virtually no time, and had no damage.

Vettel should have got a penalty of not leaving 1 car width when overtaking Hamilton. Very naughty.

davidheath461 wrote:Vettel should have got a penalty of not leaving 1 car width when overtaking Hamilton. Very naughty.

What is next? Perhaps Vettel should get a penalty for daring to breathe and have a heartbeat while being on the same track with Lewis?

The rules are quite clear though. You have to leave a car's width on the straights.

davidheath461 wrote:The rules are quite clear though. You have to leave a car's width on the straights.

So you prefer to eliminate passing entirely in F1... If you are going to condemn Vettel for that, then be sure to turn onMax, Dan, Lewis, & virtually every other F1 driver who has made more than one pass in the series. This is getting ridiculous... Correction... It has been so for some time now.

davidheath461 wrote:The rules are quite clear though. You have to leave a car's width on the straights.

I agree it's annoying but nobody ever gets penalised for that. You can't just penalise Vettel and nobody else.

I think the lack of any complaint from Hamilton about the move tells you all you need to know really; They all do it, and by and large they all accept it when on the receiving end too.

Blake wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:Vettel should have got a penalty of not leaving 1 car width when overtaking Hamilton. Very naughty.

What is next? Perhaps Vettel should get a penalty for daring to breathe and have a heartbeat while being on the same track with Lewis?

you know he's just winding you up, right?

mikeyg123 wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:The rules are quite clear though. You have to leave a car's width on the straights.

I agree it's annoying but nobody ever gets penalised for that. You can't just penalise Vettel and nobody else.

I realise it happens on the exit of corners, and all drivers are guilty of running the driver on the outside out of road on the exit of corner. Hamilton always used to do this with Rosberg.

However, on corner entry it is definitely against the rules.

davidheath461 wrote:The rules are quite clear though. You have to leave a car's width on the straights.

Yeah it would be madness to start handing out penalties for that kind of thing. And strictly speaking, wouldn't the kerb count as part of the track anyway, so technically he has a car width there already?

kerb is not part of the track. Please read the rule book. Track is defined by the white lines.

davidheath461 wrote:Please read the rule book.

No thanks, I find the plot rather weak and the ending is a total cop out (usually)

davidheath461 wrote:kerb is not part of the track. Please read the rule book. Track is defined by the white lines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ezCFx8kdXE

Hamilton and Bottas in qualifying.

Both Bottas and Hamilton go somewhere that "is not part of the track" in almost every corner. If you can do this in qualifying, then a driver forcing you just slightly over the lines is not a problem at all. They got no penalty so didn't break the rules.

davidheath461 wrote:kerb is not part of the track. Please read the rule book. Track is defined by the white lines.

You are correct, the kerbs aren't part of the track, which is why I remain surprised no action is taken against consistent overshooting of the track on corner exits. The fact they all do it, is simply because nobody takes action in the first place.
In Monaco, there are large parts of the circuit that have no white lines. Luckily, at most places there are armco barriers to tell drivers where they shouldn't go. But there are placese where there aren't, and where drivers are invited to abuse this oversight.

However, you are wrong when you think drivers always have to leave a car's width to an attacker on the straights. At least not according to the rule book, which we all should read. What Mr Whiting and the stewards think about this is anybody's guess. Just as with track limits in fact.

davidheath461 wrote:kerb is not part of the track. Please read the rule book. Track is defined by the white lines.

Yeah, but aren't the rules stating that unless all 4 wheels be over the white line, the car is not considered to be off the track? So then technically Lewis was still inside.

Blake wrote:
So you prefer to eliminate passing entirely in F1... If you are going to condemn Vettel for that, then be sure to turn onMax, Dan, Lewis, & virtually every other F1 driver who has made more than one pass in the series. This is getting ridiculous... Correction... It has been so for some time now.

But you got to put it into the right perspective. The one where Lewis was to comfortably win the race while Vettel was to comfortably stay outside of the podium.

If you want to discuss track limits at Austria, make a new topic please, this one is for Vettel's penalty in France.

Prema wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:kerb is not part of the track. Please read the rule book. Track is defined by the white lines.

Yeah, but aren't the rules stating that unless all 4 wheels be over the white line, the car is not considered to be off the track? So then technically Lewis was still inside.

I well remember Schumacher using this explanation to justify running somebody off the track partially. I have always felt this should have been clarified and published in the rule book. A driver on his own is still "on track" if he touches the outside white line with his inside wheels, but a driver abusing this to run somebody off should be forbidden.