planetf1.com

Siao7 wrote:

Johnson wrote:I wanted Charles to win his first race, but its not a penalty. This is the best view of it, stabilised footage.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

Given that Max is approaching a hairpin type corner on the inside, Leclerc does not give him enough space, he crowds him. How tight does he expect Max to go... 2 cars can not make it through there with Leclerc squeezing Max like that. I also feel like the touch makes Max force him off track even more, as Max's car stops steering, so it looks worse than it would have been.

Leclerc almost runs the racing line himself, although there are two lines through this corner. Some were running the kerb, some were running wide on it.

You do realise that Leclerc saw Max and actually corrected and opened up his line to go wider and leave more space, right? He did not turn into Max, this claim is laughable, he steered away from him. Both drivers in fact opened up their lines, Leclerc to give more space and Max to force Charles run out of space...

Watch the video slowly and look at the gaps between the cars. Leclerc starts on the far outside of the track, by the middle of the corner he is in the middle of the track. He is far too close to the apex. If you are trying to run one around the outside, you need to stay to the outside not move to the middle. Leclerc wanted to turn in even more, but opened up the wheel. If you keep pausing it and examine the video very closely, Leclerc is actually aiming for the apex before he opens the wheel up.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:

Herb wrote:I'm not sure about the overtake. 50/50 penalty maybe. It wasn't close to what Rosberg did a couple of years ago.

What annoyed me most was he was straight on the radio complaining Leclerc turned into him. No Leclerc was following the track.

Please explain which track he was following after watching this video.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

C’mon dude, seriously??!?!??

If you seriously believe that, I suggest you go to your nearest optometrist ASAP!
Leclerc was taking the PRIME LINE, only he realized max was there so he went deeper/wider to give him racing room to fight CLEAN & FAIR!!!

So in your universe Leclerc left the door open and gave Max the room, so Max took the room, and then Leclerc wanted it back?

Even in your universe it doesn't make sense. Thanks for agreeing with me.

trento wrote:

MistaVega23 wrote:Charles kept his foot in when he'd already lost the position. Being forced off-track was a direct result of a.) leaving Max too much space on the inside and b.) not yielding when Max was alongside. If he'd backed off and done the switchback on Max then he'd have had the inside line for turn 4.

If the incident had happened at the Bus Stop in Spa, for instance, then a penalty would be the logical outcome as the following left-hander would've given Charles the inside line and Max would've directly forced him off-track (or collided).

This was purely a racing incident, and proper racing it was.

agree on all your points except if Leclerc backed off. By backing off, Max would've gone ahead and I pretty much assume will be smart enough to cover the inside for turn 4.

see 2.00. Norris on Kimi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3L7WzpAsjY

If Kimi kept his foot in there, he would also have been pushed off the track..... should Norris get a penalty then.

My view is Kimi did exactly the right thing. Realised he had lost the corner and conceded before driving into a closing wedge.

The two moves are very similar except one kept their foot in, the other conceded.

Johnson wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Johnson wrote:I wanted Charles to win his first race, but its not a penalty. This is the best view of it, stabilised footage.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

Given that Max is approaching a hairpin type corner on the inside, Leclerc does not give him enough space, he crowds him. How tight does he expect Max to go... 2 cars can not make it through there with Leclerc squeezing Max like that. I also feel like the touch makes Max force him off track even more, as Max's car stops steering, so it looks worse than it would have been.

Leclerc almost runs the racing line himself, although there are two lines through this corner. Some were running the kerb, some were running wide on it.

You do realise that Leclerc saw Max and actually corrected and opened up his line to go wider and leave more space, right? He did not turn into Max, this claim is laughable, he steered away from him. Both drivers in fact opened up their lines, Leclerc to give more space and Max to force Charles run out of space...

Watch the video slowly and look at the gaps between the cars. Leclerc starts on the far outside of the track, by the middle of the corner he is in the middle of the track. He is far too close to the apex. If you are trying to run one around the outside, you need to stay to the outside not move to the middle. Leclerc wanted to turn in even more, but opened up the wheel. If you keep pausing it and examine the video very closely, Leclerc is actually aiming for the apex before he opens the wheel up.

If you look at the footage looking down on the corner from the rear of the cars, you can see that Max leaves more than a car width to the apex kerb stones. Surely claiming that Leclerc crowded Verstappen is incorrect? Remember what the stewards said about the outside car when Hamilton and Rosberg were negotiating the same corner?

It's not new; after Charlie Whiting "explained" a few years ago that it is allowed to run somebody off if you're ahead at the apex, I'm still trying to find which rule in the official rules covers that viewpoint. I have never seen anybody point where that rule is supposed to come from, and I would love Tom Kristensen or one of his non-driver colleagues to explain it to those dimwits like myself who actually look at the rules.

The feeling I got last night, on hearing the verdict, was that it took mere minutes in Canada to work out that Vettel ran Hamilton off on purpose, while it took more than an hour for the stewards in Austria to work out that there wasn't enough room for both cars to negotiate the corner... That reads like waffling to me.

There is talk of precedent. Well the lead driver in Canada, (Vettel), got a 5 second penalty for trying to squeeze Hamilton off the circuit.

Here in this incident, Max is slightly ahead of Leclerc at the point they touch, therefore meaning that Leclerc is the driver trying to pass the leader, (Max). The leader forces the guy in second place off the circuit, and even makes contact with the other car in forcing him off, but no 5 second penalty occurs. Completely wrong if Vettel is punished for attempting the same tactic on Hamilton.

Remember Vettel does not get the penalty in Canada for unsafely rejoining the circuit as his rejoin is completely out of his hands due to the car being out of control and skidding across the grass. He got the penalty for having control of his car again once he was in the middle of the circuit but he continued to move further right to squeeze Hamilton off the track after he had regained control, (the stewards had the telemetry and used it in their decision making so it was nothing to do with the unsafe rejoin, it was the squeezing post-track rejoin). If Vettel had stayed left, he wouldn't have got the 5 second penalty but this would have allowed Hamilton to get a run on him and possibly pass him. Max could have stayed further right in Austria but that would have allowed Leclerc to get a run on him and repass him like Leclerc actually did the lap before, so he squeezed Leclerc off instead to deny him a chance of passing him.

There is no consistency because in essence these two incidents are identical with the leader squeezing the second placed man off the track on both occasions. The only real difference is that Vettel had been leading for about 48 laps and Verstappen had been leading for about one second but it doesn't really matter how long you have been leading for, it's irrelevant. It's your conduct and what you do with your car towards other cars that is important, and Vettel and Max did the same thing, only at least Vettel tried to close the door when Hamilton wasn't even close to being alongside him, so his squeeze was technically 'fairer' and less requiring of a penalty.

Also Max did the corner cut on Kimi in 2017 and also the silly late race overtake attempt of Hamilton at Monaco 2019 where he crashed into the back of him coming from way back. He has history for doing crazy and unsportmanlike moves trying to force things in the last few laps of races and this is yet another one of those. And this is to take nothing away from his incredible pace in Austria and his spectacular race overall. He is a brilliant driver but is very hot-headed and overly aggressive with people. I seem to recall him doing something silly with Massa at Monza, he was at fault for crashing with Danny Ric in Baku 2018 and also something in Canada a few years back towards the start of the race where he was super aggressive with other drivers who were involved in the title fight whereas he wasn't in the title fight himself so he tried to bully them with his 'elbows out' driving.

He is super fast, perhaps the fastest driver out there, but I do think he is very often the one to blame in the crashes and incidents that he has, and Austria 2019 is no exception unfortunately.

Max is the new Schumacher- win at all costs

.

So, my understanding of the rules is that IF a car is alongside going into a corner then both cars should allow the other room to continue around the corner whilst staying on the track. Verstappen rather obviously did not comply with this.

Can anyone quote the actual wording ?

Thanks.

.

F1 Racer wrote: Remember Vettel does not get the penalty in Canada for unsafely rejoining the circuit as his rejoin is completely out of his hands due to the car being out of control and skidding across the grass. He got the penalty for having control of his car again once he was in the middle of the circuit but he continued to move further right to squeeze Hamilton off the track after he had regained control, (the stewards had the telemetry and used it in their decision making so it was nothing to do with the unsafe rejoin, it was the squeezing post-track rejoin). If Vettel had stayed left, he wouldn't have got the 5 second penalty but this would have allowed Hamilton to get a run on him and possibly pass him. Max could have stayed further right in Austria but that would have allowed Leclerc to get a run on him and repass him like Leclerc actually did the lap before, so he squeezed Leclerc off instead to deny him a chance of passing him.

The stewards in Canada wrote:The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

The emphasis is mine but this statement from the penalty report clearly states that re-entering the track IS a factor in the penalty being applied. Regaining control isn't even in the report. Please don't twist the truth to make irrelevant points.

[Source: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... oYkZs.html]

ReservoirDog wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:

Herb wrote:I'm not sure about the overtake. 50/50 penalty maybe. It wasn't close to what Rosberg did a couple of years ago.

What annoyed me most was he was straight on the radio complaining Leclerc turned into him. No Leclerc was following the track.

Please explain which track he was following after watching this video.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

C’mon dude, seriously??!?!??

If you seriously believe that, I suggest you go to your nearest optometrist ASAP!
Leclerc was taking the PRIME LINE, only he realized max was there so he went deeper/wider to give him racing room to fight CLEAN & FAIR!!!

So in your universe Leclerc left the door open and gave Max the room, so Max took the room, and then Leclerc wanted it back?

Even in your universe it doesn't make sense. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Huh? Did he shut the door or something?

No, in fact he opened up his line. If that's wanting back his space then we definitely do not agree.

Fiki wrote:

Johnson wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Johnson wrote:I wanted Charles to win his first race, but its not a penalty. This is the best view of it, stabilised footage.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

Given that Max is approaching a hairpin type corner on the inside, Leclerc does not give him enough space, he crowds him. How tight does he expect Max to go... 2 cars can not make it through there with Leclerc squeezing Max like that. I also feel like the touch makes Max force him off track even more, as Max's car stops steering, so it looks worse than it would have been.

Leclerc almost runs the racing line himself, although there are two lines through this corner. Some were running the kerb, some were running wide on it.

You do realise that Leclerc saw Max and actually corrected and opened up his line to go wider and leave more space, right? He did not turn into Max, this claim is laughable, he steered away from him. Both drivers in fact opened up their lines, Leclerc to give more space and Max to force Charles run out of space...

Watch the video slowly and look at the gaps between the cars. Leclerc starts on the far outside of the track, by the middle of the corner he is in the middle of the track. He is far too close to the apex. If you are trying to run one around the outside, you need to stay to the outside not move to the middle. Leclerc wanted to turn in even more, but opened up the wheel. If you keep pausing it and examine the video very closely, Leclerc is actually aiming for the apex before he opens the wheel up.

If you look at the footage looking down on the corner from the rear of the cars, you can see that Max leaves more than a car width to the apex kerb stones. Surely claiming that Leclerc crowded Verstappen is incorrect? Remember what the stewards said about the outside car when Hamilton and Rosberg were negotiating the same corner?

It's not new; after Charlie Whiting "explained" a few years ago that it is allowed to run somebody off if you're ahead at the apex, I'm still trying to find which rule in the official rules covers that viewpoint. I have never seen anybody point where that rule is supposed to come from, and I would love Tom Kristensen or one of his non-driver colleagues to explain it to those dimwits like myself who actually look at the rules.

The feeling I got last night, on hearing the verdict, was that it took mere minutes in Canada to work out that Vettel ran Hamilton off on purpose, while it took more than an hour for the stewards in Austria to work out that there wasn't enough room for both cars to negotiate the corner... That reads like waffling to me.

Thank you Fiki, pretty much sums up my feelings too. They banged wheels, they were side by side, not one car clearly ahead as defined by the rulebook. You always have to leave eeespace...

It's not really that hard to understand. And it is a way for the guy being overtaken to defend, by holding his ground the overtaker has to take a tighter line in the apex, a not so fast line if you want, which then allows the guy being overtaken to reclaim his place, as it happened in the previous lap. All by the book

F1 Racer wrote:There is talk of precedent. Well the lead driver in Canada, (Vettel), got a 5 second penalty for trying to squeeze Hamilton off the circuit.

Here in this incident, Max is slightly ahead of Leclerc at the point they touch, therefore meaning that Leclerc is the driver trying to pass the leader, (Max). The leader forces the guy in second place off the circuit, and even makes contact with the other car in forcing him off, but no 5 second penalty occurs. Completely wrong if Vettel is punished for attempting the same tactic on Hamilton.

Remember Vettel does not get the penalty in Canada for unsafely rejoining the circuit as his rejoin is completely out of his hands due to the car being out of control and skidding across the grass. He got the penalty for having control of his car again once he was in the middle of the circuit but he continued to move further right to squeeze Hamilton off the track after he had regained control, (the stewards had the telemetry and used it in their decision making so it was nothing to do with the unsafe rejoin, it was the squeezing post-track rejoin). If Vettel had stayed left, he wouldn't have got the 5 second penalty but this would have allowed Hamilton to get a run on him and possibly pass him. Max could have stayed further right in Austria but that would have allowed Leclerc to get a run on him and repass him like Leclerc actually did the lap before, so he squeezed Leclerc off instead to deny him a chance of passing him.

There is no consistency because in essence these two incidents are identical with the leader squeezing the second placed man off the track on both occasions. The only real difference is that Vettel had been leading for about 48 laps and Verstappen had been leading for about one second but it doesn't really matter how long you have been leading for, it's irrelevant. It's your conduct and what you do with your car towards other cars that is important, and Vettel and Max did the same thing, only at least Vettel tried to close the door when Hamilton wasn't even close to being alongside him, so his squeeze was technically 'fairer' and less requiring of a penalty.

That's true, I forgot that just a couple of races ago we had this decision. And there wasn't any contact either.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Johnson wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Johnson wrote:I wanted Charles to win his first race, but its not a penalty. This is the best view of it, stabilised footage.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

Given that Max is approaching a hairpin type corner on the inside, Leclerc does not give him enough space, he crowds him. How tight does he expect Max to go... 2 cars can not make it through there with Leclerc squeezing Max like that. I also feel like the touch makes Max force him off track even more, as Max's car stops steering, so it looks worse than it would have been.

Leclerc almost runs the racing line himself, although there are two lines through this corner. Some were running the kerb, some were running wide on it.

You do realise that Leclerc saw Max and actually corrected and opened up his line to go wider and leave more space, right? He did not turn into Max, this claim is laughable, he steered away from him. Both drivers in fact opened up their lines, Leclerc to give more space and Max to force Charles run out of space...

Watch the video slowly and look at the gaps between the cars. Leclerc starts on the far outside of the track, by the middle of the corner he is in the middle of the track. He is far too close to the apex. If you are trying to run one around the outside, you need to stay to the outside not move to the middle. Leclerc wanted to turn in even more, but opened up the wheel. If you keep pausing it and examine the video very closely, Leclerc is actually aiming for the apex before he opens the wheel up.

If you look at the footage looking down on the corner from the rear of the cars, you can see that Max leaves more than a car width to the apex kerb stones. Surely claiming that Leclerc crowded Verstappen is incorrect? Remember what the stewards said about the outside car when Hamilton and Rosberg were negotiating the same corner?

It's not new; after Charlie Whiting "explained" a few years ago that it is allowed to run somebody off if you're ahead at the apex, I'm still trying to find which rule in the official rules covers that viewpoint. I have never seen anybody point where that rule is supposed to come from, and I would love Tom Kristensen or one of his non-driver colleagues to explain it to those dimwits like myself who actually look at the rules.

The feeling I got last night, on hearing the verdict, was that it took mere minutes in Canada to work out that Vettel ran Hamilton off on purpose, while it took more than an hour for the stewards in Austria to work out that there wasn't enough room for both cars to negotiate the corner... That reads like waffling to me.

Thank you Fiki, pretty much sums up my feelings too. They banged wheels, they were side by side, not one car clearly ahead as defined by the rulebook. You always have to leave eeespace...

It's not really that hard to understand. And it is a way for the guy being overtaken to defend, by holding his ground the overtaker has to take a tighter line in the apex, a not so fast line if you want, which then allows the guy being overtaken to reclaim his place, as it happened in the previous lap. All by the book

But that's not how the sport is policed. The stewards don't agree with your view of the rulebook

mcdo wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Johnson wrote:

Siao7 wrote: You do realise that Leclerc saw Max and actually corrected and opened up his line to go wider and leave more space, right? He did not turn into Max, this claim is laughable, he steered away from him. Both drivers in fact opened up their lines, Leclerc to give more space and Max to force Charles run out of space...

Watch the video slowly and look at the gaps between the cars. Leclerc starts on the far outside of the track, by the middle of the corner he is in the middle of the track. He is far too close to the apex. If you are trying to run one around the outside, you need to stay to the outside not move to the middle. Leclerc wanted to turn in even more, but opened up the wheel. If you keep pausing it and examine the video very closely, Leclerc is actually aiming for the apex before he opens the wheel up.

If you look at the footage looking down on the corner from the rear of the cars, you can see that Max leaves more than a car width to the apex kerb stones. Surely claiming that Leclerc crowded Verstappen is incorrect? Remember what the stewards said about the outside car when Hamilton and Rosberg were negotiating the same corner?

It's not new; after Charlie Whiting "explained" a few years ago that it is allowed to run somebody off if you're ahead at the apex, I'm still trying to find which rule in the official rules covers that viewpoint. I have never seen anybody point where that rule is supposed to come from, and I would love Tom Kristensen or one of his non-driver colleagues to explain it to those dimwits like myself who actually look at the rules.

The feeling I got last night, on hearing the verdict, was that it took mere minutes in Canada to work out that Vettel ran Hamilton off on purpose, while it took more than an hour for the stewards in Austria to work out that there wasn't enough room for both cars to negotiate the corner... That reads like waffling to me.

Thank you Fiki, pretty much sums up my feelings too. They banged wheels, they were side by side, not one car clearly ahead as defined by the rulebook. You always have to leave eeespace...

It's not really that hard to understand. And it is a way for the guy being overtaken to defend, by holding his ground the overtaker has to take a tighter line in the apex, a not so fast line if you want, which then allows the guy being overtaken to reclaim his place, as it happened in the previous lap. All by the book

But that's not how the sport is policed. The stewards don't agree with your view of the rulebook

That's true, it is down to the stewards. And this is why we have this very thread, as they may not always get it right!

trento wrote:Max is the new Schumacher- win at all costs

It's not the first time he has reminded me of Schumacher and the way he shrugged off criticism of his driving. What remains of the critical attitude of the FIA towards unsporting and dangerous driving? It was lacking in the Schumacher era, and I fear it is returning.

Siao7 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Johnson wrote:Watch the video slowly and look at the gaps between the cars. Leclerc starts on the far outside of the track, by the middle of the corner he is in the middle of the track. He is far too close to the apex. If you are trying to run one around the outside, you need to stay to the outside not move to the middle. Leclerc wanted to turn in even more, but opened up the wheel. If you keep pausing it and examine the video very closely, Leclerc is actually aiming for the apex before he opens the wheel up.

If you look at the footage looking down on the corner from the rear of the cars, you can see that Max leaves more than a car width to the apex kerb stones. Surely claiming that Leclerc crowded Verstappen is incorrect? Remember what the stewards said about the outside car when Hamilton and Rosberg were negotiating the same corner?

It's not new; after Charlie Whiting "explained" a few years ago that it is allowed to run somebody off if you're ahead at the apex, I'm still trying to find which rule in the official rules covers that viewpoint. I have never seen anybody point where that rule is supposed to come from, and I would love Tom Kristensen or one of his non-driver colleagues to explain it to those dimwits like myself who actually look at the rules.

The feeling I got last night, on hearing the verdict, was that it took mere minutes in Canada to work out that Vettel ran Hamilton off on purpose, while it took more than an hour for the stewards in Austria to work out that there wasn't enough room for both cars to negotiate the corner... That reads like waffling to me.

Thank you Fiki, pretty much sums up my feelings too. They banged wheels, they were side by side, not one car clearly ahead as defined by the rulebook. You always have to leave eeespace...

It's not really that hard to understand. And it is a way for the guy being overtaken to defend, by holding his ground the overtaker has to take a tighter line in the apex, a not so fast line if you want, which then allows the guy being overtaken to reclaim his place, as it happened in the previous lap. All by the book

But that's not how the sport is policed. The stewards don't agree with your view of the rulebook

That's true, it is down to the stewards. And this is why we have this very thread, as they may not always get it right!

Personally I never used to like it. But I think my opinion has changed over time because it has become acceptable among the drivers and the rulemakers. If it's the standard way of doing things now then so be it

Also, after branching out into watching other series like FE, NASCAR and IndyCar - this Austria incident is handbags in comparison. I don't think F1 should always be the princess. A bit of rough and tough racing would do the sport a world of good

I draw the line at tyre-on-tyre though. Wheel banging done right takes skill and I applaud it. I'm not in favour of any old bumping and bashing

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Johnson wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Johnson wrote:I wanted Charles to win his first race, but its not a penalty. This is the best view of it, stabilised footage.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

Given that Max is approaching a hairpin type corner on the inside, Leclerc does not give him enough space, he crowds him. How tight does he expect Max to go... 2 cars can not make it through there with Leclerc squeezing Max like that. I also feel like the touch makes Max force him off track even more, as Max's car stops steering, so it looks worse than it would have been.

Leclerc almost runs the racing line himself, although there are two lines through this corner. Some were running the kerb, some were running wide on it.

You do realise that Leclerc saw Max and actually corrected and opened up his line to go wider and leave more space, right? He did not turn into Max, this claim is laughable, he steered away from him. Both drivers in fact opened up their lines, Leclerc to give more space and Max to force Charles run out of space...

Watch the video slowly and look at the gaps between the cars. Leclerc starts on the far outside of the track, by the middle of the corner he is in the middle of the track. He is far too close to the apex. If you are trying to run one around the outside, you need to stay to the outside not move to the middle. Leclerc wanted to turn in even more, but opened up the wheel. If you keep pausing it and examine the video very closely, Leclerc is actually aiming for the apex before he opens the wheel up.

If you look at the footage looking down on the corner from the rear of the cars, you can see that Max leaves more than a car width to the apex kerb stones. Surely claiming that Leclerc crowded Verstappen is incorrect? Remember what the stewards said about the outside car when Hamilton and Rosberg were negotiating the same corner?

It's not new; after Charlie Whiting "explained" a few years ago that it is allowed to run somebody off if you're ahead at the apex, I'm still trying to find which rule in the official rules covers that viewpoint. I have never seen anybody point where that rule is supposed to come from, and I would love Tom Kristensen or one of his non-driver colleagues to explain it to those dimwits like myself who actually look at the rules.

The feeling I got last night, on hearing the verdict, was that it took mere minutes in Canada to work out that Vettel ran Hamilton off on purpose, while it took more than an hour for the stewards in Austria to work out that there wasn't enough room for both cars to negotiate the corner... That reads like waffling to me.

Thank you Fiki, pretty much sums up my feelings too. They banged wheels, they were side by side, not one car clearly ahead as defined by the rulebook. You always have to leave eeespace...

It's not really that hard to understand. And it is a way for the guy being overtaken to defend, by holding his ground the overtaker has to take a tighter line in the apex, a not so fast line if you want, which then allows the guy being overtaken to reclaim his place, as it happened in the previous lap. All by the book

Thank you, but I have underlined a bit I don't agree with. As far as I can see, the rules don't accord any privilege to the driver slightly ahead. I know that is what Charlie Whiting explained, but it isn't in the rules every driver needs to respect, and every fan is given to read by the FIA - at least not as far as I can see. And I'm perfectly willing to be corrected, but by something more substantial than an unexplained stewards' decision.

One rule, which was removed again shortly after it was introduced, described that a significant part of the car had to be alongside, before it had to be given room. Another rule brought in in roughly the same period, is still there, and is often misunderstood, even by drivers. It is the amount of room to be given to the attacker, if a defender has gone off the racing line, but only on the approach to a corner. The rule book is far from being a good document, but the reason why it isn't made a lot better and more complete, is something I can't work out. My suspicion is that spectacle rules over sport, pandering to those who have bought broadcast rights.

mcdo wrote:But that's not how the sport is policed. The stewards don't agree with your view of the rulebook

Hence the calls for consistency. Which cannot be expected, if the rules aren't clearly written down. The ball is clearly in the FIA's court, but they don't seem to understand.

A skilled and very fast driver, a dirty racer... That doesn't make a great racing driver in my own book (which is no news to the long-time forumers...).
We'll never know what would have been the stewards decision if the last "incident" had been located elsewhere than at the Red Bull Ring, and/or if it had involved someone else than Verstappen Junior, and/or if the previous 2 races hadn't been so poorly managed. I can't stop thinking that it would have been different.

The FIA and Formula One owners don't seem to know where they belong, nor where they're heading for. Be it for the rules, the stewarding, the technical specifications or even the relationship with the tracks owners, they look like undecided rabbits... permanently agitated, which they believe is moving, and going nowhere.

Harpo wrote:A skilled and very fast driver, a dirty racer... That doesn't make a great racing driver in my own book (which is no news to the long-time forumers...).
We'll never know what would have been the stewards decision if the last "incident" had been located elsewhere than at the Red Bull Ring, and/or if it had involved someone else than Verstappen Junior, and/or if the previous 2 races hadn't been so poorly managed. I can't stop thinking that it would have been different.

The FIA and Formula One owners don't seem to know where they belong, nor where they're heading for. Be it for the rules, the stewarding, the technical specifications or even the relationship with the tracks owners, they look like undecided rabbits... permanently agitated, which they believe is moving, and going nowhere.

Well we do, because we have seen drivers push others off many, many times before with no punishment.

trento wrote:Max is the new Schumacher- win at all costs

I see similarities but he's not quite as bad as Schumacher, at least his teammates are given fair chance.

Badgeronimous wrote:

trento wrote:

MistaVega23 wrote:Charles kept his foot in when he'd already lost the position. Being forced off-track was a direct result of a.) leaving Max too much space on the inside and b.) not yielding when Max was alongside. If he'd backed off and done the switchback on Max then he'd have had the inside line for turn 4.

If the incident had happened at the Bus Stop in Spa, for instance, then a penalty would be the logical outcome as the following left-hander would've given Charles the inside line and Max would've directly forced him off-track (or collided).

This was purely a racing incident, and proper racing it was.

agree on all your points except if Leclerc backed off. By backing off, Max would've gone ahead and I pretty much assume will be smart enough to cover the inside for turn 4.

see 2.00. Norris on Kimi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3L7WzpAsjY

If Kimi kept his foot in there, he would also have been pushed off the track..... should Norris get a penalty then.

My view is Kimi did exactly the right thing. Realised he had lost the corner and conceded before driving into a closing wedge.

The two moves are very similar except one kept their foot in, the other conceded.

Yes you're right. Many were comparing lap 68 and 69 without looking and at Kimi and Norris. The Max camp feels that he got the corner and thus Leclerc should yield, like Kimi.

Fiki wrote:

trento wrote:Max is the new Schumacher- win at all costs

It's not the first time he has reminded me of Schumacher and the way he shrugged off criticism of his driving. What remains of the critical attitude of the FIA towards unsporting and dangerous driving? It was lacking in the Schumacher era, and I fear it is returning.

Yeah I fear that as well.

Greenman wrote:.

So, my understanding of the rules is that IF a car is alongside going into a corner then both cars should allow the other room to continue around the corner whilst staying on the track. Verstappen rather obviously did not comply with this.

Can anyone quote the actual wording ?

Thanks.

.

I'm not sure but I don't think the rule is worded like this at all. It's more like forcing another car off the track. If it was worded like this, there's nothing to think about. It's a penalty.

pokerman wrote:

trento wrote:Max is the new Schumacher- win at all costs

I see similarities but he's not quite as bad as Schumacher, at least his teammates are given fair chance.

oh, I dont know about that, I think Schumacher would have been extremely happy with Gasly as a team mate - no team orders would be necessary!!

cmberry20 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

trento wrote:Max is the new Schumacher- win at all costs

I see similarities but he's not quite as bad as Schumacher, at least his teammates are given fair chance.

oh, I dont know about that, I think Schumacher would have been extremely happy with Gasly as a team mate - no team orders would be necessary!!

Well I was thinking more about Ricciardo.

Fiki wrote:

mcdo wrote:But that's not how the sport is policed. The stewards don't agree with your view of the rulebook

Hence the calls for consistency. Which cannot be expected, if the rules aren't clearly written down. The ball is clearly in the FIA's court, but they don't seem to understand.

They have been consistent by not applying a penalty. That type of move doesn't get penalized

cmberry20 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

trento wrote:Max is the new Schumacher- win at all costs

I see similarities but he's not quite as bad as Schumacher, at least his teammates are given fair chance.

oh, I dont know about that, I think Schumacher would have been extremely happy with Gasly as a team mate - no team orders would be necessary!!

Remember the two drivers that took over from Schumacher/Verstappen-Herbert-etc at Benetton? They found Schumacher's cars undrivable. Gasly's 2018 season in another car at Toro Rosso was such that they were happy to have him drive for Red Bull. From Ricciardo's decision and Red Bull's statement by Horner late 2017, Gasly should have been under no illusion as to what role he would have at Red Bull. The car isn't his and won't be as long as Verstappen Junior is happy to stay.

Fiki wrote:

cmberry20 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

trento wrote:Max is the new Schumacher- win at all costs

I see similarities but he's not quite as bad as Schumacher, at least his teammates are given fair chance.

oh, I dont know about that, I think Schumacher would have been extremely happy with Gasly as a team mate - no team orders would be necessary!!

Remember the two drivers that took over from Schumacher/Verstappen-Herbert-etc at Benetton? They found Schumacher's cars undrivable. Gasly's 2018 season in another car at Toro Rosso was such that they were happy to have him drive for Red Bull. From Ricciardo's decision and Red Bull's statement by Horner late 2017, Gasly should have been under no illusion as to what role he would have at Red Bull. The car isn't his and won't be as long as Verstappen Junior is happy to stay.

Does Verstappen have such a unique driving style? Other drivers cope fine with moving teams and running against established drivers. Hamilton could drive Rosberg's car at Mercedes in 2013. Leclerc seems to be managing with Vettel's car in 2019. Ricciardo looks quicker than Hulkenberg... I could go on and on here.

Greenman wrote:.
So, my understanding of the rules is that IF a car is alongside going into a corner then both cars should allow the other room to continue around the corner whilst staying on the track. Verstappen rather obviously did not comply with this.

I don't know if the rules state this or not - maybe they don't - but in my mind if we want to see prolonged racing between 2 cars that lasts more than a corner, then this is how it should be. But either way, we need clarity on this from the powers that be since there are 2 schools of thought going around.

One group says "since max made it along side Leclerc on the inside, it's up to Leclerc to back out" and the other group says "Leclerc was along side the car still, you can't just force him off" (heard Jolyon Palmer say this). I agree with the latter. If Leclerc just had his nose alongside max, then yes, better back off, but if he is far enough along side to where the driver can see the car without the mirror, you shouldn't be able to just run him off - race the car to the next corner!

P-F1 Mod wrote:

F1 Racer wrote: Remember Vettel does not get the penalty in Canada for unsafely rejoining the circuit as his rejoin is completely out of his hands due to the car being out of control and skidding across the grass. He got the penalty for having control of his car again once he was in the middle of the circuit but he continued to move further right to squeeze Hamilton off the track after he had regained control, (the stewards had the telemetry and used it in their decision making so it was nothing to do with the unsafe rejoin, it was the squeezing post-track rejoin). If Vettel had stayed left, he wouldn't have got the 5 second penalty but this would have allowed Hamilton to get a run on him and possibly pass him. Max could have stayed further right in Austria but that would have allowed Leclerc to get a run on him and repass him like Leclerc actually did the lap before, so he squeezed Leclerc off instead to deny him a chance of passing him.

The stewards in Canada wrote:The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

The emphasis is mine but this statement from the penalty report clearly states that re-entering the track IS a factor in the penalty being applied. Regaining control isn't even in the report. Please don't twist the truth to make irrelevant points.

[Source: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... oYkZs.html]

Firstly Vettel couldn't do a thing about how he rejoined as he was out of control and I have seen an article about stewards looking at his steering inputs as he got back on track that is the key to this Canada issue:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/reas ... a/4461461/

You even concede that Hamilton was forced to take evasive action in the comments you posted, well wasn't Leclerc forced to take evasive action from Max's squeezing in the same way? These two incidents are very close at their core.

Fiki wrote:

cmberry20 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

trento wrote:Max is the new Schumacher- win at all costs

I see similarities but he's not quite as bad as Schumacher, at least his teammates are given fair chance.

oh, I dont know about that, I think Schumacher would have been extremely happy with Gasly as a team mate - no team orders would be necessary!!

Remember the two drivers that took over from Schumacher/Verstappen-Herbert-etc at Benetton? They found Schumacher's cars undrivable. Gasly's 2018 season in another car at Toro Rosso was such that they were happy to have him drive for Red Bull. From Ricciardo's decision and Red Bull's statement by Horner late 2017, Gasly should have been under no illusion as to what role he would have at Red Bull. The car isn't his and won't be as long as Verstappen Junior is happy to stay.

Red Bull is a one driver team with 2 cars. That's why they say they do not intend to replace Gasly. They know they won't care more of what happens to the second car, Gasly or not Gasly.
Not that they don't care at all. They just don't care as much... They never did.

“I hate people going back a number of years because the rulebook’s evolved, the manner in which they’ve been interpreted has evolved with everyone being involved in that discussion. When we start talking about precedent and incidents occurring three years ago, what may have been a breach then because of the way it’s been interpreted has evolved and may have become lessened in some ways. It’s a balancing act.” Race director Michael Masi

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/masi ... d/4487191/

So, no more quoting incidents from three years ago as justification for or against then.

Greenman wrote:.

So, my understanding of the rules is that IF a car is alongside going into a corner then both cars should allow the other room to continue around the corner whilst staying on the track. Verstappen rather obviously did not comply with this.

Can anyone quote the actual wording ?

Thanks.

.

Chapter four of appendix L of the FIA sporting code. It states: "Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited."

babararacucudada wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

So, my understanding of the rules is that IF a car is alongside going into a corner then both cars should allow the other room to continue around the corner whilst staying on the track. Verstappen rather obviously did not comply with this.

Can anyone quote the actual wording ?

Thanks.

.

Chapter four of appendix L of the FIA sporting code. It states: "Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited."

Exactly, this move is not allowed in the rules at all, just as Vettel got penalised in Canada for trying to crowd Hamilton off the track and into the wall, as per the above article I linked. Here is the relevant information for Vettel:

''Vettel was adamant that he had done nothing wrong, and said that he had been powerless in the situation as his car had been out of control after running over the grass.

But while it is clear from on board footage that Vettel was battling to regain control of his car after bouncing across the grass, it is understood that the stewards' decision was based on actions that Vettel took once he had got going again.

The stewards examined slow motion footage of Vettel's actions from the moment that he had regained control and started steering his car – and it was felt that it showed that the German could have chosen a different path than the one he took.

The footage clearly captures Vettel correcting an oversteer moment as he rejoins the track – which is shown by a sharp steering wheel movement to the right by the German.

Shortly after that, however, Vettel has dispatched the oversteer and begins steering to the left to follow the direction of the circuit - suggesting he is now under control.

But a split moment later, rather than keeping to the left, Vettel is shown to release the steering wheel which allows his car to drift to the right – cutting off the route that Hamilton would have taken had he had clear space.

The movement to straighten the wheel, which put Vettel into the path of Hamilton, is believed to be key to the unanimous decision by the stewards to punish Vettel.

A further reason the stewards established was through the use of an extra CCTV camera view of the incident, which was not broadcast on the international feed, showing Vettel's head looking in the mirrors at where Hamilton was during these moments when he was releasing the wheel to the right.

Onboard footage of the Vettel incident also shows his head looking towards the mirrors in the moment when he is drifting out, suggesting he knew where Hamilton was.

Had Vettel kept his car tight to the left once he had regained control, then there was likely enough room to have allowed Hamilton through on the right, in which case the matter would almost certainly not have been investigated.''

Interestingly later in the article there is this:

''Precedent for the Vettel decision to punish him for both rejoining the track in an unsafe manner and forcing a rival off the track was made last year in Japan when Max Verstappen was punished with a five-second penalty for a collision with Kimi Raikkonen at the chicane.

Verstappen had run wide at the chicane on the first lap of the race and rejoined in an aggressive manner, pushing Raikkonen wide on the exit.

At the time, the late F1 race director Charlie Whiting said: "You are required to rejoin safely and Kimi was there and pushing him off the track. So I think that was a fairly straightforward one for the stewards.''

Now some people may say that you are allowed to push people off track, so long as it is not combined with an unsafe rejoin, but this really doesn't make any sense because the whole reason the rejoin is unsafe is because a competitor is there and you have pushed them off the track. It is the pushing them off the track that is the real offence, you have hindered a competitor and forced them to go outside track limits. This is exactly what Max did to Leclerc in Austria 2019 too, but he went unpunished...

babararacucudada wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

So, my understanding of the rules is that IF a car is alongside going into a corner then both cars should allow the other room to continue around the corner whilst staying on the track. Verstappen rather obviously did not comply with this.

Can anyone quote the actual wording ?

Thanks.

.

Chapter four of appendix L of the FIA sporting code. It states: "Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited."

On the one hand, I personally don't believe wheel banging is the same as crowding. On the other hand, crowding is going on at corner exit in a lot of races and the stewards don't seem to ever apply the rule in that situation

mcdo wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

So, my understanding of the rules is that IF a car is alongside going into a corner then both cars should allow the other room to continue around the corner whilst staying on the track. Verstappen rather obviously did not comply with this.

Can anyone quote the actual wording ?

Thanks.

.

Chapter four of appendix L of the FIA sporting code. It states: "Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited."

On the one hand, I personally don't believe wheel banging is the same as crowding. On the other hand, crowding is going on at corner exit in a lot of races and the stewards don't seem to ever apply the rule in that situation

Yes, the stewards continually misunderstand and misapply the rules in this area. They have allowed crowding off the track to go unpunished many times in the past, but it was never acceptable then and it's still not acceptable now.

F1 Racer wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

So, my understanding of the rules is that IF a car is alongside going into a corner then both cars should allow the other room to continue around the corner whilst staying on the track. Verstappen rather obviously did not comply with this.

Can anyone quote the actual wording ?

Thanks.

.

Chapter four of appendix L of the FIA sporting code. It states: "Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited."

Exactly, this move is not allowed in the rules at all, just as Vettel got penalised in Canada for trying to crowd Hamilton off the track and into the wall, as per the above article I linked. Here is the relevant information for Vettel:

''Vettel was adamant that he had done nothing wrong, and said that he had been powerless in the situation as his car had been out of control after running over the grass.

But while it is clear from on board footage that Vettel was battling to regain control of his car after bouncing across the grass, it is understood that the stewards' decision was based on actions that Vettel took once he had got going again.

The stewards examined slow motion footage of Vettel's actions from the moment that he had regained control and started steering his car – and it was felt that it showed that the German could have chosen a different path than the one he took.

The footage clearly captures Vettel correcting an oversteer moment as he rejoins the track – which is shown by a sharp steering wheel movement to the right by the German.

Shortly after that, however, Vettel has dispatched the oversteer and begins steering to the left to follow the direction of the circuit - suggesting he is now under control.

But a split moment later, rather than keeping to the left, Vettel is shown to release the steering wheel which allows his car to drift to the right – cutting off the route that Hamilton would have taken had he had clear space.

The movement to straighten the wheel, which put Vettel into the path of Hamilton, is believed to be key to the unanimous decision by the stewards to punish Vettel.

A further reason the stewards established was through the use of an extra CCTV camera view of the incident, which was not broadcast on the international feed, showing Vettel's head looking in the mirrors at where Hamilton was during these moments when he was releasing the wheel to the right.

Onboard footage of the Vettel incident also shows his head looking towards the mirrors in the moment when he is drifting out, suggesting he knew where Hamilton was.

Had Vettel kept his car tight to the left once he had regained control, then there was likely enough room to have allowed Hamilton through on the right, in which case the matter would almost certainly not have been investigated.''

Interestingly later in the article there is this:

''Precedent for the Vettel decision to punish him for both rejoining the track in an unsafe manner and forcing a rival off the track was made last year in Japan when Max Verstappen was punished with a five-second penalty for a collision with Kimi Raikkonen at the chicane.

Verstappen had run wide at the chicane on the first lap of the race and rejoined in an aggressive manner, pushing Raikkonen wide on the exit.

At the time, the late F1 race director Charlie Whiting said: "You are required to rejoin safely and Kimi was there and pushing him off the track. So I think that was a fairly straightforward one for the stewards.''

Now some people may say that you are allowed to push people off track, so long as it is not combined with an unsafe rejoin, but this really doesn't make any sense because the whole reason the rejoin is unsafe is because a competitor is there and you have pushed them off the track. It is the pushing them off the track that is the real offence, you have hindered a competitor and forced them to go outside track limits. This is exactly what Max did to Leclerc in Austria 2019 too, but he went unpunished...

Aren't you even remotely going to consider that Leclerc played his part in the incident too? He chose to put his car where he did, and therefore run the risk of Max (who was already up the inside of him and therefore claiming the corner) crowding him. The two of them were equally liable in the subsequent contact on corner exit.

Now you may therefore argue that Lewis also put his car in a dangerous position when Vettel rejoined the track in Canada (even Kimi in Suzuka), but comparing the two is futile. They both weren't fighting for the corner. The penalty and reasons for it simply don't apply here.

MistaVega23 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

So, my understanding of the rules is that IF a car is alongside going into a corner then both cars should allow the other room to continue around the corner whilst staying on the track. Verstappen rather obviously did not comply with this.

Can anyone quote the actual wording ?

Thanks.

.

Chapter four of appendix L of the FIA sporting code. It states: "Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited."

Exactly, this move is not allowed in the rules at all, just as Vettel got penalised in Canada for trying to crowd Hamilton off the track and into the wall, as per the above article I linked. Here is the relevant information for Vettel:

''Vettel was adamant that he had done nothing wrong, and said that he had been powerless in the situation as his car had been out of control after running over the grass.

But while it is clear from on board footage that Vettel was battling to regain control of his car after bouncing across the grass, it is understood that the stewards' decision was based on actions that Vettel took once he had got going again.

The stewards examined slow motion footage of Vettel's actions from the moment that he had regained control and started steering his car – and it was felt that it showed that the German could have chosen a different path than the one he took.

The footage clearly captures Vettel correcting an oversteer moment as he rejoins the track – which is shown by a sharp steering wheel movement to the right by the German.

Shortly after that, however, Vettel has dispatched the oversteer and begins steering to the left to follow the direction of the circuit - suggesting he is now under control.

But a split moment later, rather than keeping to the left, Vettel is shown to release the steering wheel which allows his car to drift to the right – cutting off the route that Hamilton would have taken had he had clear space.

The movement to straighten the wheel, which put Vettel into the path of Hamilton, is believed to be key to the unanimous decision by the stewards to punish Vettel.

A further reason the stewards established was through the use of an extra CCTV camera view of the incident, which was not broadcast on the international feed, showing Vettel's head looking in the mirrors at where Hamilton was during these moments when he was releasing the wheel to the right.

Onboard footage of the Vettel incident also shows his head looking towards the mirrors in the moment when he is drifting out, suggesting he knew where Hamilton was.

Had Vettel kept his car tight to the left once he had regained control, then there was likely enough room to have allowed Hamilton through on the right, in which case the matter would almost certainly not have been investigated.''

Interestingly later in the article there is this:

''Precedent for the Vettel decision to punish him for both rejoining the track in an unsafe manner and forcing a rival off the track was made last year in Japan when Max Verstappen was punished with a five-second penalty for a collision with Kimi Raikkonen at the chicane.

Verstappen had run wide at the chicane on the first lap of the race and rejoined in an aggressive manner, pushing Raikkonen wide on the exit.

At the time, the late F1 race director Charlie Whiting said: "You are required to rejoin safely and Kimi was there and pushing him off the track. So I think that was a fairly straightforward one for the stewards.''

Now some people may say that you are allowed to push people off track, so long as it is not combined with an unsafe rejoin, but this really doesn't make any sense because the whole reason the rejoin is unsafe is because a competitor is there and you have pushed them off the track. It is the pushing them off the track that is the real offence, you have hindered a competitor and forced them to go outside track limits. This is exactly what Max did to Leclerc in Austria 2019 too, but he went unpunished...

Aren't you even remotely going to consider that Leclerc played his part in the incident too? He chose to put his car where he did, and therefore run the risk of Max (who was already up the inside of him and therefore claiming the corner) crowding him. The two of them were equally liable in the subsequent contact on corner exit.

Now you may therefore argue that Lewis also put his car in a dangerous position when Vettel rejoined the track in Canada (even Kimi in Suzuka), but comparing the two is futile. They both weren't fighting for the corner. The penalty and reasons for it simply don't apply here.

The rules say you can't crowd another driver off the track like Vettel and Max did recently. Max's was worse of course because he was doing it to another car that was already fully alongside him unlike Vettel's whose move was more like Nico Rosberg vs Hamilton in Spain 2016, (which incidentally Nico got away with, but then maybe stewards didn't intervene because they were teammates, again not acceptable but I've seen this idea bandied around too).

In Austria Leclerc was just following his outside trajectory around the corner, it is Max that had additional space available to him on his right that he chose not to use as he kept on veering left. Where else is Leclerc supposed to go? His only alternative would be to slow down and brake massively to avoid contact, (like Hamilton did in Canada 2019), but then this would involve him conceding first place instead of contesting for it like he has every right to do, and indeed did so succesfully on lap 68. No one is saying that Leclerc was crazy on lap 68 to not concede the lead, they were loving his continued presence around the outside of Max at turn three that allowed him to retake the lead into turn four, so why should Leclerc get out of the way on lap 69? Leclerc made the assumption that Max would continue to race fair like Max did on lap 68, why should be concede figthing for the lead by assuming that his rival will suddenly start driving against the rules on lap 69?

F1 Racer wrote:

mcdo wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

So, my understanding of the rules is that IF a car is alongside going into a corner then both cars should allow the other room to continue around the corner whilst staying on the track. Verstappen rather obviously did not comply with this.

Can anyone quote the actual wording ?

Thanks.

.

Chapter four of appendix L of the FIA sporting code. It states: "Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited."

On the one hand, I personally don't believe wheel banging is the same as crowding. On the other hand, crowding is going on at corner exit in a lot of races and the stewards don't seem to ever apply the rule in that situation

Yes, the stewards continually misunderstand and misapply the rules in this area. They have allowed crowding off the track to go unpunished many times in the past, but it was never acceptable then and it's still not acceptable now.

The sport disagrees with you

mcdo wrote:On the one hand, I personally don't believe wheel banging is the same as crowding. On the other hand, crowding is going on at corner exit in a lot of races and the stewards don't seem to ever apply the rule in that situation

I'm personally impressed by the mental gymnastics required to believe that Max didn't crowd Leclerc off track. While I'll fully agree this has become accepted as a racing move in recent years -- wrongly, in my opinion -- I think it's as clear a case of crowding another driver off track as you're ever going to find.