Canada 2019: Vettel Penalty Uberthread (merged)

[Siao7]

Am I right in saying all that tomorrow's meeting is the stewards deciding whether Ferrari will actually be able to have a right to review? If they say no, then case closed and if they say yes, the right to review takes place some other time?

"Officials will consider whether Ferrari has "significant" new evidence.

If they judge that Ferrari's submission meets that standard, stewards will then consider whether that justifies overturning the penalty.

"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48706142

As I read it they will deal with it then, though its not totally clear.

I would genuinely be shocked if they overturned that penalty. Only because the penalty had a direct impact on how the rest of the race played out. Hamilton knew he didn't need to actually overtake Vettel on the track in order to win. Without the penalty, the situation would have been completely different.

Yeah that's the issue and apparantly Mercedes are already preparing a defence along the lines of 'We drove a more cautious strategy as a result of the penalty.'

I doubt there is any room in the rules for a shared win where both drivers get 22 points each or something, so I'm really not sure how they will deal with this.

It's not possible to rescind the penalty for that reason. Even if Ferrari could get the stewards to publicly state they made a mistake the race result won't change. The only thing they can do is remove the penalty points.

Exactly this. Mercedes can use this for their defence, and they'd be right as well. Very clever stuff from them.

The only thing that I can think that this whole affair may do is to maybe start looking at the penalty system again. For example award penalties at the end of the race, but during the race I'd let them just race. With obvious exceptions, like cutting the chicane and giving the position back. Not many people like penalties after the race is over, but right now once the penalty is served during the race there is no way to take it back. And in case of a mistake, then how do you correct that?

[mikeyg123]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU72heP0uH0&t=22s

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

[Option or Prime]

It seems that crowding is an issue that the FIA want to get get to grips with in response to Schumacher's driving tactics, (heard in radio commentary). They don't seem to be that consistent in doing that however, having said that incidents early in the race are far more likely to be ignored.

It was also mentioned that Vettel may need to be contrite in this hearing having previously had a swearing rant at Charlie Whiting. He wrote an apology at the time and vowed never to abuse the stewards ever again. Charlie moved on but it seems that Jean Todt may not have done so!

[Rockie]

Yeah that's the issue and apparantly Mercedes are already preparing a defence along the lines of 'We drove a more cautious strategy as a result of the penalty.'

I doubt there is any room in the rules for a shared win where both drivers get 22 points each or something, so I'm really not sure how they will deal with this.

It's not possible to rescind the penalty for that reason. Even if Ferrari could get the stewards to publicly state they made a mistake the race result won't change. The only thing they can do is remove the penalty points.

Exactly this. Mercedes can use this for their defence, and they'd be right as well. Very clever stuff from them.

The only thing that I can think that this whole affair may do is to maybe start looking at the penalty system again. For example award penalties at the end of the race, but during the race I'd let them just race. With obvious exceptions, like cutting the chicane and giving the position back. Not many people like penalties after the race is over, but right now once the penalty is served during the race there is no way to take it back. And in case of a mistake, then how do you correct that?

Although they wont overturn the penalty, Mercedes cant use this as a defence at all, no arbitration panel will ever accept that excuse.

[Siao7]

Yeah that's the issue and apparantly Mercedes are already preparing a defence along the lines of 'We drove a more cautious strategy as a result of the penalty.'

I doubt there is any room in the rules for a shared win where both drivers get 22 points each or something, so I'm really not sure how they will deal with this.

It's not possible to rescind the penalty for that reason. Even if Ferrari could get the stewards to publicly state they made a mistake the race result won't change. The only thing they can do is remove the penalty points.

Exactly this. Mercedes can use this for their defence, and they'd be right as well. Very clever stuff from them.

The only thing that I can think that this whole affair may do is to maybe start looking at the penalty system again. For example award penalties at the end of the race, but during the race I'd let them just race. With obvious exceptions, like cutting the chicane and giving the position back. Not many people like penalties after the race is over, but right now once the penalty is served during the race there is no way to take it back. And in case of a mistake, then how do you correct that?

Although they wont overturn the penalty, Mercedes cant use this as a defence at all, no arbitration panel will ever accept that excuse.

What do you mean? Hamilton clearly stopped attacking Vettel and just stayed within 5 sec behind him.

[Johnson]

Apparently Hamilton was 75 kmph faster than Vettel when he had to hit the brakes, that is pretty damning for Vettel. It didn't look such a significant speed difference in the videos.

[Johnson]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 -

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

Do you have the link?

Crowding on entry is often penalised, exit hardly ever as the driver can see what is happening in front of him and expected to yield (Spa 2014 for example). That is provided the car on the inside is ahead. Mid corner is a bit ambigious.

I thought Vettel was lucky to escape a penalty in China this year, he forced Verstappen onto the grass way passed the exit of the hairpin exit, they were actually onto the straight by that point and Verstappen was fully alongside.

Once they have cleared the kerbing, Vettel just drives him off the road when there is space for both of them.

https://youtu.be/AVzyaE-RXSs?t=116

He also did it to Hamilton at Austria last year on corner entry.

[Siao7]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 -

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

Do you have the link?

Crowding on entry is often penalised, exit hardly ever as the driver can see what is happening in front of him and expected to yield (Spa 2014 for example). That is provided the car on the inside is ahead. Mid corner is a bit ambigious.

I thought Vettel was lucky to escape a penalty in China this year, he forced Verstappen onto the grass way passed the exit of the hairpin exit, they were actually onto the straight by that point and Verstappen was fully alongside.

Once they have cleared the kerbing, Vettel just drives him off the road when there is space for both of them.

https://youtu.be/AVzyaE-RXSs?t=116

He also did it to Hamilton at Austria last year on corner entry.

I think China wasn't bad. Maybe a bit naughty, but they would classify this as hard racing:

"However, Verstappen said he would have done the same and explained that he saw passing Vettel at the hairpin as his best opportunity.

"I tried under braking because his tyres were still a bit cold," he said. "Then on the exit he made it quite close, but I mean I would've done the same, so it was alright.""

[mikeyg123]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 -

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

Do you have the link?

Crowding on entry is often penalised, exit hardly ever as the driver can see what is happening in front of him and expected to yield (Spa 2014 for example). That is provided the car on the inside is ahead. Mid corner is a bit ambigious.

I thought Vettel was lucky to escape a penalty in China this year, he forced Verstappen onto the grass way passed the exit of the hairpin exit, they were actually onto the straight by that point and Verstappen was fully alongside.

Once they have cleared the kerbing, Vettel just drives him off the road when there is space for both of them.

https://youtu.be/AVzyaE-RXSs?t=116

He also did it to Hamilton at Austria last year on corner entry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU72heP0uH0&t=22s

Surely pushing someone off the track is pushing someone off the track? If they can see what you're doing and have a chance to yield or drive off circuit is surely irrelevant? Or at least IMO it should be.

[Johnson]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 -

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

Do you have the link?

Crowding on entry is often penalised, exit hardly ever as the driver can see what is happening in front of him and expected to yield (Spa 2014 for example). That is provided the car on the inside is ahead. Mid corner is a bit ambigious.

I thought Vettel was lucky to escape a penalty in China this year, he forced Verstappen onto the grass way passed the exit of the hairpin exit, they were actually onto the straight by that point and Verstappen was fully alongside.

Once they have cleared the kerbing, Vettel just drives him off the road when there is space for both of them.

https://youtu.be/AVzyaE-RXSs?t=116

He also did it to Hamilton at Austria last year on corner entry.

I think China wasn't bad. Maybe a bit naughty, but they would classify this as hard racing:

"However, Verstappen said he would have done the same and explained that he saw passing Vettel at the hairpin as his best opportunity.

"I tried under braking because his tyres were still a bit cold," he said. "Then on the exit he made it quite close, but I mean I would've done the same, so it was alright.""

Fair play to Verstappen, he gives it hard and can accept it when he gets it hard back. At least he is consistent. But I don't thinkt that changes what happened and the rules, they can easily be a penalty and if the rules are applied correctly, it is. The cars were level and Vettel basically said, move onto the grass or we collide.

[Johnson]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 -

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

Do you have the link?

Crowding on entry is often penalised, exit hardly ever as the driver can see what is happening in front of him and expected to yield (Spa 2014 for example). That is provided the car on the inside is ahead. Mid corner is a bit ambigious.

I thought Vettel was lucky to escape a penalty in China this year, he forced Verstappen onto the grass way passed the exit of the hairpin exit, they were actually onto the straight by that point and Verstappen was fully alongside.

Once they have cleared the kerbing, Vettel just drives him off the road when there is space for both of them.

https://youtu.be/AVzyaE-RXSs?t=116

He also did it to Hamilton at Austria last year on corner entry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU72heP0uH0&t=22s

Surely pushing someone off the track is pushing someone off the track? If they can see what you're doing and have a chance to yield or drive off circuit is surely irrelevant? Or at least IMO it should be.

Thanks, ah it was lap 1. If that happened under normal race he might have got penalised.

Yes I agree, I should have been more clear, generally if a driver is squeezed on exit they are significantly behind by that point. If they are level or even ahead then of course they have earned the space.

[Fiki]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 -

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

Do you have the link?

Crowding on entry is often penalised, exit hardly ever as the driver can see what is happening in front of him and expected to yield (Spa 2014 for example). That is provided the car on the inside is ahead. Mid corner is a bit ambigious.

I thought Vettel was lucky to escape a penalty in China this year, he forced Verstappen onto the grass way passed the exit of the hairpin exit, they were actually onto the straight by that point and Verstappen was fully alongside.

Once they have cleared the kerbing, Vettel just drives him off the road when there is space for both of them.

https://youtu.be/AVzyaE-RXSs?t=116

He also did it to Hamilton at Austria last year on corner entry.

I think China wasn't bad. Maybe a bit naughty, but they would classify this as hard racing:

"However, Verstappen said he would have done the same and explained that he saw passing Vettel at the hairpin as his best opportunity.

"I tried under braking because his tyres were still a bit cold," he said. "Then on the exit he made it quite close, but I mean I would've done the same, so it was alright.""

Fair play to Verstappen, he gives it hard and can accept it when he gets it hard back. At least he is consistent. But I don't thinkt that changes what happened and the rules, they can easily be a penalty and if the rules are applied correctly, it is. The cars were level and Vettel basically said, move onto the grass or we collide.

I can't understand why drivers would say it is OK because they would do it themselves. According to the rules, Verstappen wasn't off the track completely, and therefore not off the track. (Remember that this definition is what Schumacher abused when challenged about his infamous chop?)

Edit: I should have added that crowding somebody off at the exit was even described by Charlie Whiting as acceptable, if the driver doing the crowding was ahead at the apex. I would love to have known where this is to be found in the rules, as the only applicable rule I can think of is that it should never be tolerated.

[pokerman]

Race fans don't buy tickets for the podium ceremony either. At Francorchamps, you wouldn't even be able to get to the podium area via the track in time, if you wanted to get there from most of the grandstands. But if there were a delay for the stewards' investigations, perhaps.... And a few years ago I was in the grandstand between the finish line and La Source, so I could see the drivers in the distance, plus the TV screen. But once Martin Brundle started interviewing the drivers, a helicopter kept flying up and down the finish straight. So I couldn't even understand what was said, even through the PA system. The fans at home could, I'm sure.
Still, none of all this changes my view that a correct result is what is needed, and if that takes some time, so be it.

I didn't really follow the Verstappen Monaco incident, but if I were a driver who had been investigated and given a penalty that was incorrect in my view, I would go and see the stewards afterwards, yes. I don't know what Max thought, or whether he cared. But going to see them instead of being summoned would make for a nice change, wouldn't you think?

I take your point with that, the podium presentation and interviews are really more important for the tv audience.

You had no views on the Verstappen incident because perhaps you were not really that interested but that would fall in this remit of yours that the stewards had no right to penalise him until they had interviewed him after the race.

It kind of doesn't surprise that people are only really interested in certain incidents being dealt with in a certain way that may be more important to them for one reason or another.

Of course I was interested in the Verstappen/Räikkönen incident, Kimi being one of the few drivers who interest me. At the time I believe I felt the penalty was correct, but I don't seem to have reacted to it on the race thread. Verstappen causing an accident with Vettel was a discussion I entered into. (Fully Verstappen's fault in my view.)

I'm not sure where you got the idea I believe the stewards had no right to penalise a driver until they have interviewed him after the race. That is not my point of view; the stewards definitely have the right to act as they have. I'm sure you will have read that I emphasize respect for the stewards' verdicts.

The two incidents are only superficially similar. Those who believe they are near-identical and consequently the recent Vettel penalty is explained and can only result in a penalty should consider things more carefully.
In Japan the driver error led to the incident, while in Canada controlling a loss of control led to it. In the steward reports of both incidents, this distinction isn't made, which surprises me. Which is also why I'm interested in what Ferrari will use in their defence of Vettel.

Fair enough you seem to have taken a step back regarding the stewards, Vettel clearly also made a driving error but that in itself is irrelevant to the issue of returning to the track safely.

No, I didn't take a step back regarding the stewards. My view is that it would have been better to issue a penalty after speaking to the driver(s) about it, after the race. That would not have stopped the racing the way it did now, and it would not preclude demoting Vettel if he would still have been found guilty. But they can definitely issue the penalty they did, I never claimed they couldn't.

I don't think the basis for the penalty is whether he re-joined unsafely, but whether he deliberately crowded Hamilton off the track. If I'm right, then all it comes down to, is proving Vettel had regained full control of the vehicle before crowding Hamilton.

Then it sounds to me that you're happy with incidents to be dealt with differently based on the circumstance and that's not inconsistent at all?

As for the crowding off the track I don't understand why that has to be deliberate when returning to the track, however the stewards have determined that's the reasoning for the penalty, whatever though the penalty cannot be overturned.

[pokerman]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU72heP0uH0&t=22s

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

Doesn't this all relate to returning to the track though?

[JN23]

So Ferrari's significant new evidence was Karun Chandok's analysis on Sky. I mean, really Ferrari?

Edit: part of the new evidence was this. https://twitter.com/CroftyF1/status/114 ... 49473?s=19

[Herb]

Well they've thrown it out.

Perhaps we can move on?

[Laz_T800]

So Ferrari's significant new evidence was Karun Chandok's analysis on Sky. I mean, really Ferrari?

I imagine the stewards struggled to keep a straight face.

[mikeyg123]

So Ferrari's significant new evidence was Karun Chandok's analysis on Sky. I mean, really Ferrari?

Edit: part of the new evidence was this. https://twitter.com/CroftyF1/status/114 ... 49473?s=19

Whatever you think of the penalty (I'm against it),Ferrari are an absolute peaky show. Both team and drivers are leaving a lot to be desired.

[Option or Prime]

For the "right to review" Ferrari need new evidence, seems they have this but are refusing to share it, “Due to the sensitivity of the matter we are not giving any further details,".

I have to say I'm not sure what that means? I would have thought they needed fresh facts or photographic evidence.

I was genuinely interested in this, so no sensitivity issues at all!

It looks to me that Ferrari have just placated Vettel by appealing. Are they scared of him, all a bit odd. Poor judgement from management and to quote a 'tele pundit' as evidence is just opening themselves up to ridicule.

What is more this will now be quoted as the precedent for similar incidents. If it were me I would be embarrassed to be interviewed about it.

[Alienturnedhuman]

Everyone, start using your best font. The next time Ferrari appeal something they may start using our forum posts.

[mcdo]

Everyone, start using your best font. The next time Ferrari appeal something they may start using our forum posts.

Post-race threads on Reddit have been changing race results in NASCAR

[Option or Prime]

Everyone, start using your best font. The next time Ferrari appeal something they may start using our forum posts.

I hadn't though of that. To my surprise I found one of my posts on the home page of the Planetf1.com site. Does this mean I might be quoted in an FIA hearing? Should I get a colourist to advise me of my font colour incidentally.

[mikeyg123]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU72heP0uH0&t=22s

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

Doesn't this all relate to returning to the track though?

What was Vettel penalised for?

[Option or Prime]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU72heP0uH0&t=22s

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

Doesn't this all relate to returning to the track though?

What was Vettel penalised for?

From the BBC:

"Vettel had been found guilty of rejoining the track in an unsafe manner and forcing Hamilton to take avoiding action."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48720454

[shoot999]

So this is the same Karun who tried valiantly when he joined Sky to have his own opinion; but now just parrots croft and Herbert.

And sensitive as in commercial-in-sensitive? Did Sky know about this from early on and that's why they have been banging the drum constantly.

[JN23]

So this is the same Karun who tried valiantly when he joined Sky to have his own opinion; but now just parrots croft and Herbert.

And sensitive as in commercial-in-sensitive? Did Sky know about this from early on and that's why they have been banging the drum constantly.

He probably isn't going to have a different opinion on absolutely everything though is he.

As for the second part of your post, I highly doubt Ferrari told Sky they would be using it. Sky just like to build things up massively (regardless of the sport) and keep stories running for a long time.

[Alienturnedhuman]

Everyone, start using your best font. The next time Ferrari appeal something they may start using our forum posts.

Post-race threads on Reddit have been changing race results in NASCAR

I would pay good money to have this happen in F1 so long as I could witness Joe Saward's reaction when he found out.

[Fiki]

I take your point with that, the podium presentation and interviews are really more important for the tv audience.

You had no views on the Verstappen incident because perhaps you were not really that interested but that would fall in this remit of yours that the stewards had no right to penalise him until they had interviewed him after the race.

It kind of doesn't surprise that people are only really interested in certain incidents being dealt with in a certain way that may be more important to them for one reason or another.

Of course I was interested in the Verstappen/Räikkönen incident, Kimi being one of the few drivers who interest me. At the time I believe I felt the penalty was correct, but I don't seem to have reacted to it on the race thread. Verstappen causing an accident with Vettel was a discussion I entered into. (Fully Verstappen's fault in my view.)

I'm not sure where you got the idea I believe the stewards had no right to penalise a driver until they have interviewed him after the race. That is not my point of view; the stewards definitely have the right to act as they have. I'm sure you will have read that I emphasize respect for the stewards' verdicts.

The two incidents are only superficially similar. Those who believe they are near-identical and consequently the recent Vettel penalty is explained and can only result in a penalty should consider things more carefully.
In Japan the driver error led to the incident, while in Canada controlling a loss of control led to it. In the steward reports of both incidents, this distinction isn't made, which surprises me. Which is also why I'm interested in what Ferrari will use in their defence of Vettel.

Fair enough you seem to have taken a step back regarding the stewards, Vettel clearly also made a driving error but that in itself is irrelevant to the issue of returning to the track safely.

No, I didn't take a step back regarding the stewards. My view is that it would have been better to issue a penalty after speaking to the driver(s) about it, after the race. That would not have stopped the racing the way it did now, and it would not preclude demoting Vettel if he would still have been found guilty. But they can definitely issue the penalty they did, I never claimed they couldn't.

I don't think the basis for the penalty is whether he re-joined unsafely, but whether he deliberately crowded Hamilton off the track. If I'm right, then all it comes down to, is proving Vettel had regained full control of the vehicle before crowding Hamilton.

Then it sounds to me that you're happy with incidents to be dealt with differently based on the circumstance and that's not inconsistent at all?

I'm all for consistency, but perhaps you can tell me which incident you would like me to compare this one with?

As for the crowding off the track I don't understand why that has to be deliberate when returning to the track, however the stewards have determined that's the reasoning for the penalty, whatever though the penalty cannot be overturned.

It's not because a penalty can't be overturned, that we should just shrug an incident off, rather than examine it. If something isn't deliberate, then even an accident can go unpunished, as we've seen before.
I understood the stewards thought Vettel crowded Hamilton off the track on purpose, which to me is the crucial reason for giving a penalty. So, even though the review has in the meantime been rejected, I would still like to know what exactly Ferrari tried to prove. I think the telemetry, "including car attitude channels" must have been interesting. I hope we will get to read more insight; meanwhile I'm going to look for Chandhok's analysis, as I couldn't watch it outside the UK before.

[mikeyg123]

Of course I was interested in the Verstappen/Räikkönen incident, Kimi being one of the few drivers who interest me. At the time I believe I felt the penalty was correct, but I don't seem to have reacted to it on the race thread. Verstappen causing an accident with Vettel was a discussion I entered into. (Fully Verstappen's fault in my view.)

I'm not sure where you got the idea I believe the stewards had no right to penalise a driver until they have interviewed him after the race. That is not my point of view; the stewards definitely have the right to act as they have. I'm sure you will have read that I emphasize respect for the stewards' verdicts.

The two incidents are only superficially similar. Those who believe they are near-identical and consequently the recent Vettel penalty is explained and can only result in a penalty should consider things more carefully.
In Japan the driver error led to the incident, while in Canada controlling a loss of control led to it. In the steward reports of both incidents, this distinction isn't made, which surprises me. Which is also why I'm interested in what Ferrari will use in their defence of Vettel.

Fair enough you seem to have taken a step back regarding the stewards, Vettel clearly also made a driving error but that in itself is irrelevant to the issue of returning to the track safely.

No, I didn't take a step back regarding the stewards. My view is that it would have been better to issue a penalty after speaking to the driver(s) about it, after the race. That would not have stopped the racing the way it did now, and it would not preclude demoting Vettel if he would still have been found guilty. But they can definitely issue the penalty they did, I never claimed they couldn't.

I don't think the basis for the penalty is whether he re-joined unsafely, but whether he deliberately crowded Hamilton off the track. If I'm right, then all it comes down to, is proving Vettel had regained full control of the vehicle before crowding Hamilton.

Then it sounds to me that you're happy with incidents to be dealt with differently based on the circumstance and that's not inconsistent at all?

I'm all for consistency, but perhaps you can tell me which incident you would like me to compare this one with?

As for the crowding off the track I don't understand why that has to be deliberate when returning to the track, however the stewards have determined that's the reasoning for the penalty, whatever though the penalty cannot be overturned.

It's not because a penalty can't be overturned, that we should just shrug an incident off, rather than examine it. If something isn't deliberate, then even an accident can go unpunished, as we've seen before.
I understood the stewards thought Vettel crowded Hamilton off the track on purpose, which to me is the crucial reason for giving a penalty. So, even though the review has in the meantime been rejected, I would still like to know what exactly Ferrari tried to prove. I think the telemetry, "including car attitude channels" must have been interesting. I hope we will get to read more insight; meanwhile I'm going to look for Chandhok's analysis, as I couldn't watch it outside the UK before.

We do actually quite often see that punished though. Look at poor Kvyat in China. A little snap of oversteer and he takes out both Mclaren's and gets a penalty. Wrongly in my view, but it does a small error that causes a crash will often result in a penalty.

[pokerman]

So Ferrari's significant new evidence was Karun Chandok's analysis on Sky. I mean, really Ferrari?

Edit: part of the new evidence was this. https://twitter.com/CroftyF1/status/114 ... 49473?s=19

So what I said was true that part of the evidence was the positioning of the cars on the previous lap like what difference does that make?

Then they went and used the analysis of a Sky pundit made without reference to the actual rules, I guess it just shows what influence Sky might have on people, they seem to either not know the rules or think that rules should be ignored for the show.

[pokerman]

For the "right to review" Ferrari need new evidence, seems they have this but are refusing to share it, “Due to the sensitivity of the matter we are not giving any further details,".

I have to say I'm not sure what that means? I would have thought they needed fresh facts or photographic evidence.

I was genuinely interested in this, so no sensitivity issues at all!

It looks to me that Ferrari have just placated Vettel by appealing. Are they scared of him, all a bit odd. Poor judgement from management and to quote a 'tele pundit' as evidence is just opening themselves up to ridicule.

What is more this will now be quoted as the precedent for similar incidents. If it were me I would be embarrassed to be interviewed about it.

Maybe it's just a case of wanting to shore up Vettel's confidence better that than putting any blame on Vettel?

[pokerman]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU72heP0uH0&t=22s

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

Doesn't this all relate to returning to the track though?

What was Vettel penalised for?

From the BBC:

"Vettel had been found guilty of rejoining the track in an unsafe manner and forcing Hamilton to take avoiding action."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48720454

Thank you, the two things are related yet people for some reason are wanting to treat it as simply crowding Hamilton off the track and then comparing it with other examples of drivers being crowded off the track, these incidents are not the same.

[pokerman]

Of course I was interested in the Verstappen/Räikkönen incident, Kimi being one of the few drivers who interest me. At the time I believe I felt the penalty was correct, but I don't seem to have reacted to it on the race thread. Verstappen causing an accident with Vettel was a discussion I entered into. (Fully Verstappen's fault in my view.)

I'm not sure where you got the idea I believe the stewards had no right to penalise a driver until they have interviewed him after the race. That is not my point of view; the stewards definitely have the right to act as they have. I'm sure you will have read that I emphasize respect for the stewards' verdicts.

The two incidents are only superficially similar. Those who believe they are near-identical and consequently the recent Vettel penalty is explained and can only result in a penalty should consider things more carefully.
In Japan the driver error led to the incident, while in Canada controlling a loss of control led to it. In the steward reports of both incidents, this distinction isn't made, which surprises me. Which is also why I'm interested in what Ferrari will use in their defence of Vettel.

Fair enough you seem to have taken a step back regarding the stewards, Vettel clearly also made a driving error but that in itself is irrelevant to the issue of returning to the track safely.

No, I didn't take a step back regarding the stewards. My view is that it would have been better to issue a penalty after speaking to the driver(s) about it, after the race. That would not have stopped the racing the way it did now, and it would not preclude demoting Vettel if he would still have been found guilty. But they can definitely issue the penalty they did, I never claimed they couldn't.

I don't think the basis for the penalty is whether he re-joined unsafely, but whether he deliberately crowded Hamilton off the track. If I'm right, then all it comes down to, is proving Vettel had regained full control of the vehicle before crowding Hamilton.

Then it sounds to me that you're happy with incidents to be dealt with differently based on the circumstance and that's not inconsistent at all?

I'm all for consistency, but perhaps you can tell me which incident you would like me to compare this one with?

As for the crowding off the track I don't understand why that has to be deliberate when returning to the track, however the stewards have determined that's the reasoning for the penalty, whatever though the penalty cannot be overturned.

It's not because a penalty can't be overturned, that we should just shrug an incident off, rather than examine it. If something isn't deliberate, then even an accident can go unpunished, as we've seen before.
I understood the stewards thought Vettel crowded Hamilton off the track on purpose, which to me is the crucial reason for giving a penalty. So, even though the review has in the meantime been rejected, I would still like to know what exactly Ferrari tried to prove. I think the telemetry, "including car attitude channels" must have been interesting. I hope we will get to read more insight; meanwhile I'm going to look for Chandhok's analysis, as I couldn't watch it outside the UK before.

Any incident that involves two drivers, if Vettel has the right to self defence before being penalised then all the drivers before him did as well but I guess they were either not important enough or the situation was not important enough?

My understanding of Chanhok's analysis is that it wasn't done with knowledge of the actual rules, also regarding unsafe return I'm sure it's not defined that a driver can only be penalised if they deliberate crowd another driver off the track although in this instance the stewards believe Vettel did it on purpose.

[FormulaFun]

Hahahahaha they kept saying they had new revolutionary evidence, they put so much effort into this and they came up with frickin chandhok's sky TV analysis

Ferrari are actually one of the most pathetic teams on the grid this season

[mikeyg123]

Hahahahaha they kept saying they had new revolutionary evidence, they put so much effort into this and they came up with frickin chandhok's sky TV analysis

Ferrari are actually one of the most pathetic teams on the grid this season

They've certainly made themselves a bit of joke, I assume to keep Vettel happy. I hope it was worth it.

[Option or Prime]

Hahahahaha they kept saying they had new revolutionary evidence, they put so much effort into this and they came up with frickin chandhok's sky TV analysis

Ferrari are actually one of the most pathetic teams on the grid this season

They've certainly made themselves a bit of joke, I assume to keep Vettel happy. I hope it was worth it.

[sandman1347]

Hahahahaha they kept saying they had new revolutionary evidence, they put so much effort into this and they came up with frickin chandhok's sky TV analysis

Ferrari are actually one of the most pathetic teams on the grid this season

They've certainly made themselves a bit of joke, I assume to keep Vettel happy. I hope it was worth it.

It's so funny that it's actually hard to believe it really happened. What a joke.

[shoot999]

Hahahahaha they kept saying they had new revolutionary evidence, they put so much effort into this and they came up with frickin chandhok's sky TV analysis

Ferrari are actually one of the most pathetic teams on the grid this season

They've certainly made themselves a bit of joke, I assume to keep Vettel happy. I hope it was worth it.

It's so funny that it's actually hard to believe it really happened. What a joke.

Why Chandhok? Surely Ferrari could have wheeled out the big guns and got Croft and his mate Dave as their expert witnesses?

[BMWSauber84]

What a headscratcher. I have sympathy for Ferrari in that I don't feel the original penalty should have been applied. Yet this attempt to get it changed was utterly symbolic. To promise game changing new evidence and just provide Sky tv analysis is embarassing.

[babararacucudada]

I do think that there is something in this crowding off the track thing. But it never, ever usually gets penalised. It usually doesn't even get thought of as a possible penalty.

Look at this from Hungary 2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU72heP0uH0&t=22s

Bottas completely crowds Verstappen off the circuit at turn 1 and it never even got a mention.

The stewards seemed to think that Vettel could have left room for Hamilton, and had deliberately closed the gap, forcing Hamilton off the track and to back off or have an accident.
So in some ways, they are saying that it wasn't an unsafe return, until Vettel started to crowd Hamilton off the track.

Your mention of Hungary reminds me of a corner at Hungary where the racing line would tend to give an opportunity to go round the outside on the left-hander and then have the inside line for the right-hander.
At 4:10 Magnussen runs Hulkenberg well away from the racing line so that Magnussen goes right to the outside of the track, leaving no chance for Hulkenberg to stay on the track. Magnussen got a 5 second penalty - like Vettel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU72heP0uH0

There have been other similar situations (of going way off the racing line to force another driver off the track) at that corner (but not as blatant), that were not penalised.

The circuit was probably designed for that corner combination to provide a possibility for an overtake, but the drivers are allowed on most occasions to use very little skill to defend and force the other driver off the track.