2019 Canadian Grand Prix Race Thread

[sandman1347]

Good read from Jolyon Palmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

For all the potential appeals to authority that go with a multitude of ex-drivers/champions disagreeing with the penalty, this is the most reasoned after-the-dust-has-settled analysis from someone who should know what they're talking about I've seen thus far.

Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

[angrypirate]

You dont need to completely ignore it, its rubbish. He clearly gets a snap of oversteer, you can see it onboard and from Hamiltons view. Doing something else, i.e. letting the car snap, would have resulted in a crash and he would have likely taken Hamilton out too.

A-He gets snap oversteer because he's early on the throttle while his tires are still on the curb.

B-He corrects this oversteer in time to stay off the racing line but CHOOSES to block Hamilton.

If you don't like the facts, that's understandable but do not willfully ignore them.

A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

[Blake]

Good read from Jolyon Palmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

For all the potential appeals to authority that go with a multitude of ex-drivers/champions disagreeing with the penalty, this is the most reasoned after-the-dust-has-settled analysis from someone who should know what they're talking about I've seen thus far.

Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

So the multitude of other drivers are emotional, on!y Palmer is reasonable? They will come around and change their judgements?

Don't BET on it ! So you think so little of the multitude of drivers, that you think they only commented due to their emotions.

[sandman1347]

Good read from Jolyon Palmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

For all the potential appeals to authority that go with a multitude of ex-drivers/champions disagreeing with the penalty, this is the most reasoned after-the-dust-has-settled analysis from someone who should know what they're talking about I've seen thus far.

Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

So the multitude of other drivers are emotional, on!y Palmer is reasonable? They will come around and change their judgements?

Don't BET on it ! So you think so little of the multitude of drivers, that you think they only commented due to their emotions.

It's not that I think little of them, it's that they, as well as the pundits on TV, allowed the disappointment of seeing the battle come to an end prematurely to influence their commentary on the penalty. Most of their comments were to the effect of "Vettel made an honest mistake" or "he didn't have control of the car" or other such statements. I didn't hear many of them speak to the actual penalty at hand (which has nothing to do with whether or not he intended to block Hamilton or whether or not he had control of the car). In the cold light of day, when the emotions of the moment have faded; let's see how many of them stick to their guns.

[Blinky McSquinty]

It's the regular fans who will be most frustrated with the result, but they are already watching, and very, very few will actually stop watching because of this.[/color]

I am one of those very, very few. I have been following Formula One closely since the late 60's, and the crap I saw yesterday made me realize that the actual racing is crap and the politics is disgusting. I have zero reason for watching any Formula One race. I have many other options and many other exciting racing series to watch.

[wolfticket]

Good read from Jolyon Palmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

For all the potential appeals to authority that go with a multitude of ex-drivers/champions disagreeing with the penalty, this is the most reasoned after-the-dust-has-settled analysis from someone who should know what they're talking about I've seen thus far.

Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

So the multitude of other drivers are emotional, on!y Palmer is reasonable? They will come around and change their judgements?

Don't BET on it ! So you think so little of the multitude of drivers, that you think they only commented due to their emotions.

I think Palmer has expressed a lengthy, reasoned and informed argument that makes sense (to me at least). That outweighs the opinions any number of of ex-drivers, however accomplished, if they fail to provide better arguments for their position.

[pokerman]

You dont need to completely ignore it, its rubbish. He clearly gets a snap of oversteer, you can see it onboard and from Hamiltons view. Doing something else, i.e. letting the car snap, would have resulted in a crash and he would have likely taken Hamilton out too.

A-He gets snap oversteer because he's early on the throttle while his tires are still on the curb.

B-He corrects this oversteer in time to stay off the racing line but CHOOSES to block Hamilton.

If you don't like the facts, that's understandable but do not willfully ignore them.

A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

So your basically saying that Vettel's main concern was keeping his position rather than returning to the track safely, the defence being made for him was that he was still out of control when he returned to the track yet he immediately got on the throttle.

[Blake]

Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

So the multitude of other drivers are emotional, on!y Palmer is reasonable? They will come around and change their judgements?

Don't BET on it ! So you think so little of the multitude of drivers, that you think they only commented due to their emotions.

I think Palmer has expressed a lengthy, reasoned and informed argument that makes sense (to me at least). That outweighs the opinions any number of of ex-drivers, however accomplished, if they fail to provide better arguments for their position.

Of course it does, Palmer's opinion always matters more than that of "any number of ex-drivers"....

[FormulaFun]

Given time to let their emotions simmer down; I think most of the other ex-drivers will change their tune on this incident.

So the multitude of other drivers are emotional, on!y Palmer is reasonable? They will come around and change their judgements?

Don't BET on it ! So you think so little of the multitude of drivers, that you think they only commented due to their emotions.

I think Palmer has expressed a lengthy, reasoned and informed argument that makes sense (to me at least). That outweighs the opinions any number of of ex-drivers, however accomplished, if they fail to provide better arguments for their position.

Of course it does, Palmer's opinion always matters more than that of "any number of ex-drivers"....

So what about Rosberg (both Nico and Keke) that think his penalty was deserved.

There's drivers on both sides of the fence

[Blake]

What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

[Covalent]

Has anyone found someone who has driven an F1 car competitively who agrees with the penalty yet?

Nope. If even the Sky team disagree with the penalty it must really take a special kind of Lewis love to agree with it.

I really don't understand why, irrespective of team loyalty, posters fail so dramatically to be impartial. Like many I have doubts about the penalty but it has nothing to do with my support or otherwise for Vettel.

Your statement is factually incorrect as it happens. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48577539. But thats not the point I wanted to make.

I still maintain that the stewarding decisions now and in the future will be influenced be the desire to avoid a collision on track at all costs.

There was a formal interview after the race with both LH and SV which was interesting, I can firm up the details but it was basically that SV is fed up with decisions that make them, (the drivers,) talk like lawyers. Clearly something had been said behind the scenes because part of LH's response was to the effect, "stick around don't go!".

Looking at the bigger picture this isn't about letting people race, its about preventing harm coming to the drivers, probably because no one wants to be sued!

Which part of that rather long article makes my statement factually incorrect?

[Huw]

Personally, my opinion is that both Vettel and Hamilton are dicks...

I suppose there are those who will consider the above point to be not 100% germane to the argument but I’m curious, Blinky McSquinty... what is it about these two that makes them ‘dicks’ as you put it?

They both seem to be intelligent and personable young men as far as I can see.

I’m curious to read your reasons for this assessment.

[Covalent]

Some further information on how the stewards made their decision is detailed in this article:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14399 ... y-decision

Basically says that the decision was mostly based on his steering inputs after gaining back control of the car. Still don't like the penalty but it's interesting further insight.

Too bad most of the people frothing at the mouth will completely ignore this and continue with the "there was nothing else he could do" argument...

Comments like this don't help with any conversation, was this necessary?

Sandman has been using this tone policing fallacy quite actively these last days, trying to devalue the statements by claiming the poster is being emotional when in fact he is the only one taking it to a personal level.

[FormulaFun]

It's the regular fans who will be most frustrated with the result, but they are already watching, and very, very few will actually stop watching because of this.[/color]

I am one of those very, very few. I have been following Formula One closely since the late 60's, and the crap I saw yesterday made me realize that the actual racing is crap and the politics is disgusting. I have zero reason for watching any Formula One race. I have many other options and many other exciting racing series to watch.

You really think that there is more behind this penalty and that it was a political decision? Would you elaborate on what you think the motives are and why they would make that decision if you think there are politics behind it

[FormulaFun]

What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

[Laz_T800]

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... n%20Vettel

Just looking at the race lap comparison, 3 things stand out.
1, Vettel lost less than 2 seconds of lap time in the incident. The only way he loses so little IMHO is by nailing the throttle all through the run off, thus causing his out of control problem.
2, His issue caused Hamilton to lose even more time than Vettel. As rules go it's pretty damning evidence that he has hampered another driver sufficiently enough to be penalised.
3, It looks to me that he knew the penalty was coming long before it was announced. At lap 52 he suddenly starts to put in very quick laps to try and grow the gap.

[Covalent]

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... n%20Vettel

Just looking at the race lap comparison, 3 things stand out.
1, Vettel lost less than 2 seconds of lap time in the incident. The only way he loses so little IMHO is by nailing the throttle all through the run off, thus causing his out of control problem.
2, His issue caused Hamilton to lose even more time than Vettel. As rules go it's pretty damning evidence that he has hampered another driver sufficiently enough to be penalised.
3, It looks to me that he knew the penalty was coming long before it was announced. At lap 52 he suddenly starts to put in very quick laps to try and grow the gap.

I'm sorry but you got 0/3 correct.

1. There's just no way you can nail the throttle on a grass run off in an F1 car without spinning immediately.
2. Hamilton was closer to Vettel after the incident than before so obviously he lost less time.
3. Is he clairvoyant? He just reacted to the possibility of a penalty.

[Laz_T800]

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... n%20Vettel

Just looking at the race lap comparison, 3 things stand out.
1, Vettel lost less than 2 seconds of lap time in the incident. The only way he loses so little IMHO is by nailing the throttle all through the run off, thus causing his out of control problem.
2, His issue caused Hamilton to lose even more time than Vettel. As rules go it's pretty damning evidence that he has hampered another driver sufficiently enough to be penalised.
3, It looks to me that he knew the penalty was coming long before it was announced. At lap 52 he suddenly starts to put in very quick laps to try and grow the gap.

I'm sorry but you got 0/3 correct.

1. There's just no way you can nail the throttle on a grass run off in an F1 car without spinning immediately.
2. Hamilton was closer to Vettel after the incident than before so obviously he lost less time.
3. Is he clairvoyant? He just reacted to the possibility of a penalty.

47 1:15.343[1] 1:15.288[2] +0.055 -0.686
48 1:17.255[1] 1:17.396[2] -0.141 -0.827

As you can see, Hamilton 100% lost more time than Seb.

[mcdo]

What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

[Siao7]

Personally, my opinion is that both Vettel and Hamilton are dicks (but great wheelmen). I am not a fan of either. I have seen worse infractions blatantly ignored by the stewards. The sport either enforces every rule to the letter (no matter whom) or just let the racers race.

Too many rules, too much politics, too much disparity. No wonder Formula One is losing it's luster and prestige every day.

The fact that this is being talked about and not the race is indicative of how bad yesterday was for formula one.

Was it though? Honestly, I'm asking. They say there's no such thing as bad press and everyone is talking about it. Most buzz of any race so far this year.

True, this race will be remembered. But equally, they will remember the one incident (and aftermath) about this race and not the actual race!

[Greenman]

.

Are the people saying that Vettel's idiocies are "good for the sport" the same people who criticised Bernie for all his changes that he thought were also "good for the sport" ?

Schumaker got away with ridiculous actions because he was regarded as "good for the sport" - that was disastrous.

.

[Siao7]

In terms of entertainment, I really do fear this season is going to end up being a re-run of 2013, with Bottas playing the role of Webber - started off well.... then ended by being absolutely bossed.

This was the Multi-21 moment for the season.....

Yeah, a lot of hope, nothing to see in the end. But this has been similar to the last couple of years, Ferrari giving some hope of challenge, only for Hamilton to turn the wick on in the latter part of the season and run with it.

[Siao7]

For someone that isn't going to watch F1 again he sure comments a lot

I'm still pretty annoyed that I almost spent money to be there yesterday.

But once I'm done on this topic, I can guarantee you that you will not see a post from me until Australia next year.

Well at least some good has come out of it.

yes, I get my free time back.

You enjoy the Mercedes/Hamilton coronation.

Thank you, I will. Ive enjoyed F1 since the late 50s; and will carry on enjoying it. And I'll enjoy Hamiltons coronation as much as I enjoyed Sebs, and Schumachers, and Sennas and Clarks. And all for the same reason; they were crowned because they were the best drivers of their time; and I appreciate the skills they consistently displayed throughout their careers.

I knew that 999 was your age!!! (just joking!)

It's good to meet people that saw the races we all just read about. What memories you must have

[Siao7]

A-He gets snap oversteer because he's early on the throttle while his tires are still on the curb.

B-He corrects this oversteer in time to stay off the racing line but CHOOSES to block Hamilton.

If you don't like the facts, that's understandable but do not willfully ignore them.

A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

[Siao7]

A-He gets snap oversteer because he's early on the throttle while his tires are still on the curb.

B-He corrects this oversteer in time to stay off the racing line but CHOOSES to block Hamilton.

If you don't like the facts, that's understandable but do not willfully ignore them.

A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

So your basically saying that Vettel's main concern was keeping his position rather than returning to the track safely, the defence being made for him was that he was still out of control when he returned to the track yet he immediately got on the throttle.

No I did not say that. All I said is that there is no rule preventing him from getting on the throttle when he got on the track. In essence, I think that he is allowed to go back on track and immediately on the throttle to defend his position; it does not mean he has the right to crowd someone, it is not what I am saying.

[TedStriker]

Had Lewis been a second further back, there would have been no penalty, it would have gone down as just another clumsy piece of driving.

Seb just needs to drive a bit faster in the rest of the lap if he's going to outbrake himself. An out of control rejoin causing another driver to brake will (should?) always result in some form of pain for the offender.

As I said at the time - he should have momentarily backed off once out of the corner, let Lewis past then stuck on his gearbox and raced to the end. Win-win for fairness and fans alike.

Ferrari should have approached race control immediately and asked if this would avoid an investigation. They would no doubt have been told yes.

[Siao7]

.

Are the people saying that Vettel's idiocies are "good for the sport" the same people who criticised Bernie for all his changes that he thought were also "good for the sport" ?

Schumaker got away with ridiculous actions because he was regarded as "good for the sport" - that was disastrous.

.

Bringing Schumacher into every conversation you can... Why so b*tthurt??? Plus, you are factually incorrect

[Siao7]

Had Lewis been a second further back, there would have been no penalty, it would have gone down as just another clumsy piece of driving.

Seb just needs to drive a bit faster in the rest of the lap if he's going to outbrake himself. An out of control rejoin causing another driver to brake will (should?) always result in some form of pain for the offender.

As I said at the time - he should have momentarily backed off once out of the corner, let Lewis past then stuck on his gearbox and raced to the end. Win-win for fairness and fans alike.

Ferrari should have approached race control immediately and asked if this would avoid an investigation. They would no doubt have been told yes.

I think yes they should have talked to the control as they used to do in the past, but I guess offering something to get out of trouble sounds almost like the definition of a bribe (for lack of better word)...

[tootsie323]

What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

If I recall correctly, Button did receive a drive-through penalty during that race.

[mcdo]

What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

If I recall correctly, Button did receive a drive-through penalty during that race.

That was for speeding behind the safety car, not for the collisions he had with other cars

[angrypirate]

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

In flooring the throttle he failed to rejoin safely as he was out of control (back end stepping out). Alternatively, lets just say he was in control and rejoined safely, he promptly crowded Hamilton off the track as Hamilton was significantly alongside.

[tootsie323]

What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

If I recall correctly, Button did receive a drive-through penalty during that race.

That was for speeding behind the safety car, not for the collisions he had with other cars

Ah - thanks. My recollection is a touch vague then! I believe that button collided with Hamilton and Alonso. The Hamilton incident I put down as a racing one but would have not complained too loudly had he been penalised for the Alonso incident (though he penalised himself with a puncture and a half-lap limp back to the pits).
If Vettel had not received a penalty at the weekend I wouldn't have complained too much either. He did. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy about it. But I do understand why. I've seen a number of incidents that could have gone either way, in terms of being punished or not, and can be ambivalent over the outcome.

[FormulaFun]

What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

What are you talking about?? Button had a drive through penalty that day

[Fiki]

A - possibly yes, doesn't make any difference to my point though.

B - no, the steering input to the right is correcting the snap of oversteer, at no point does he regain control of the car and then decide to move right.

I'm not ignoring facts.

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

We could add to that, the rule that it is not allowed to drive unnecessarily slowly, which you could take to mean that he was bound to get back up to racing speed as quickly as possible, so as not to constitute a hazard for other drivers.

Playing the devil's advocate a bit, one might point out that the rules don't say a driver has to re-join safely. They literally say that a driver can re-join when it is safe to do so. The operative word being "when". And it is worth pointing out that Vettel had no choice in picking the moment he re-joined.

It all boils down to whether Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the track deliberately or not, which apparently the stewards have determined he did. Which is why I hope the Ferrari appeal will cause the evidence of that to be made available to us all. Respect for the stewards is a matter of honour, but respect for the evidence is no less important.

[mikeyg123]

The reason given - Squeezing off the circuit - is the most baffling part to me. We see drivers pushed off the circuit almost every race without penalty. It's pretty much the done things to run the driver on the outside out of road on corner exit.

[Siao7]

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

In flooring the throttle he failed to rejoin safely as he was out of control (back end stepping out). Alternatively, lets just say he was in control and rejoined safely, he promptly crowded Hamilton off the track as Hamilton was significantly alongside.

As I replied to Poker right below that comment.

[tootsie323]

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

We could add to that, the rule that it is not allowed to drive unnecessarily slowly, which you could take to mean that he was bound to get back up to racing speed as quickly as possible, so as not to constitute a hazard for other drivers.

Playing the devil's advocate a bit, one might point out that the rules don't say a driver has to re-join safely. They literally say that a driver can re-join when it is safe to do so. The operative word being "when". And it is worth pointing out that Vettel had no choice in picking the moment he re-joined.

It all boils down to whether Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the track deliberately or not, which apparently the stewards have determined he did. Which is why I hope the Ferrari appeal will cause the evidence of that to be made available to us all. Respect for the stewards is a matter of honour, but respect for the evidence is no less important.

Up until now I was arguing that intent should not be a factor: just because you do not mean to do something does not exclude that something from having happened. However, one or two posters have quoted the regulations which apparently stipulate that a driver should not deliberately crowd another driver off the circuit. If that is the case than, as mentioned above, it does come down to intent.
In terms of rejoining the circuit safely, Vettel had a split second to control the car as best he could across the grass. The fact that he kept the car pointing in the right direction, and that there was space on the circuit at the point of him rejoining, is good enough for me.
Edit: as above, it's about rejoining the circuit when it is safe to. Vettel had no choice in that matter so it's a non-factor for me.
Jeez - I've gone from moaning about the penalty to supporting it to being on the fence over it! Perhaps I'm just too fickle...

[Siao7]

He lost the back of the car because he applied the throttle as soon as he rejoined the track, so keen was he to keep his position.

There is no rule that prevents throttling after rejoining the track and trying to save your position, so that is not something to hold against him. Unless you think F1 is a "after you sir" type of racing.

Um, yes there is. The rule is to rejoin safely. By flooring the accelerator and kicking the back end out, he failed to rejoin safely as Hamilton had to take avoiding action

No there isn't such a rule, it does not say you cannot apply the throttle, it only says that you have to rejoin safely, thank you for confirming that.

We could add to that, the rule that it is not allowed to drive unnecessarily slowly, which you could take to mean that he was bound to get back up to racing speed as quickly as possible, so as not to constitute a hazard for other drivers.

Playing the devil's advocate a bit, one might point out that the rules don't say a driver has to re-join safely. They literally say that a driver can re-join when it is safe to do so. The operative word being "when". And it is worth pointing out that Vettel had no choice in picking the moment he re-joined.

It all boils down to whether Vettel squeezed Hamilton off the track deliberately or not, which apparently the stewards have determined he did. Which is why I hope the Ferrari appeal will cause the evidence of that to be made available to us all. Respect for the stewards is a matter of honour, but respect for the evidence is no less important.

I never thought of it this way.

But I think the crowding was there to see, Hamilton was alongside him enough to be considered crowded out and hence justify the penalty. I too hope that we get to see the telemetry and other evidence.

[mcdo]

What about them? The question was about Palmer vs "any number of ex-drivers".

That said, even allowing for your addendum, there's only 3 drivers who have come out in favor of the penalty, and 2 of them have somewhat of a relationship with Mercedes, beneficiaries of the ruling.

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

What are you talking about?? Button had a drive through penalty that day

For speeding behind the safety car, not for putting Alonso in the wall

[mcdo]

My point is that being an ex-driver doesn't give you absolute authority. Difference is Palmer has given a detailed argument, everybody else has dropped one liners immediately after the incident.

Button as well said it was harsh but was clearly conflicted because he knew that rules being rules the penalty was accurate.

One detailed and nuanced opinion is better value than a sound bite

If anyone should have lost a win in Canada due to dodgy driving it was Jenson Button. But on that day they just let them get on with it and have an old school brawl. And it often gets cited as the best race of the decade

If I recall correctly, Button did receive a drive-through penalty during that race.

That was for speeding behind the safety car, not for the collisions he had with other cars

Ah - thanks. My recollection is a touch vague then! I believe that button collided with Hamilton and Alonso. The Hamilton incident I put down as a racing one but would have not complained too loudly had he been penalised for the Alonso incident (though he penalised himself with a puncture and a half-lap limp back to the pits).
If Vettel had not received a penalty at the weekend I wouldn't have complained too much either. He did. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy about it. But I do understand why. I've seen a number of incidents that could have gone either way, in terms of being punished or not, and can be ambivalent over the outcome.

My thoughts exactly