planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

Mayhem wrote:Fia report on Vettel investigation

https://www.fia.com/file/94207/download/28948

“ Decision: No further action.

The Stewards reviewed video evidence, heard from the driver of car 5 (Sebastian Vettel) and the team representative.
The Stewards reviewed multiple camera angles, some of which appeared to show that the tyres were not in contact with the white line of the track edge however other angles appeared to show that part of the front “wheel” (when viewed from above) may have been within the bounds of the white line. This cast an element of doubt which is considered significant enough to give the “benefit of doubt” to the driver in question.
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.”

The actual wheel is wider than the tyre contact patch, so they found an angle that obscured the contact patch of the tyre.

that's a problem with the rule.

in that any camera that is not perfectly aligned can be accused of having some element of error of parallax. and therefore any other view that is also not perfect but disputes it means you cannot have a definite answer.

also i imagine the rule is not really meant to deal with the marginal decisions but drivers that really take the gherkin

Asphalt_World wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote: Yes, but didn't then also show an angle that shows it stayed on track? I saw one. That being the case, they've see pictures that show he was off track but also stayed on track. Hence benefit of the doubt I guess.

I understand this is unsatisfactory, but that's the current state of play at the moment. F1 invests hugely in wining and dinning billionaires at races but can't spend a few quid on technology to manage races.

The technology (images) are at their disposal, the rules state the car has to be in contact with the track, that's a physical requirement unless the car happens to be airborne I guess?

Yes, and to be fair, even as a die-hard Ferrari fan, I too thought he should have the lap removed, but it's completely and utterly true that there is at least one camera angle where it appears the car could still have a fraction of a tyre on the white line. I'd say a decent lawyer would use that to ascertain that it was not 100% proven that he left the track limits, hence the FIA having no choice.

Not when there are images that show it not to be true, you shouldn't be able to use an image that's blocked by a part of the car and say well the tyre might have been touching the white line.

But SKY showed a video of him going through the corner, a view from behind, that appeared to show the front right kept on the white line. It wasn't obscured by anything. It was just one angle. Like I said, I fully expected it to be cancelled, but if one angle shows he was possibly OK, that's all it will take I guess. Not saying I agree, just playing devils advocate.

Sky don't have access to the same images as the stewards though, what we saw was far from a close up image.

milomak wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Mayhem wrote:Fia report on Vettel investigation

https://www.fia.com/file/94207/download/28948

“ Decision: No further action.

The Stewards reviewed video evidence, heard from the driver of car 5 (Sebastian Vettel) and the team representative.
The Stewards reviewed multiple camera angles, some of which appeared to show that the tyres were not in contact with the white line of the track edge however other angles appeared to show that part of the front “wheel” (when viewed from above) may have been within the bounds of the white line. This cast an element of doubt which is considered significant enough to give the “benefit of doubt” to the driver in question.
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.”

The actual wheel is wider than the tyre contact patch, so they found an angle that obscured the contact patch of the tyre.

that's a problem with the rule.

in that any camera that is not perfectly aligned can be accused of having some element of error of parallax. and therefore any other view that is also not perfect but disputes it means you cannot have a definite answer.

The rule seems to be quite black and white, the car has to be in contact with the track and they had access to the relevant images.

pokerman wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I've always thought this site is excellent with getting a great deal of the radio of the drivers.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/09/07/ana ... -unfolded/

So Sainz and the Hulk blocked the track and prevented the cars from behind posting a lap time and there's no punishment, today the stewards were noticeable by their absence.

They got reprimands, so there was some.

But Vettel did get investigated, then cleared. Bottas from the description of some asking the FIA didn't actually do anything wrong and that is possibly why he didn't even get investigated. Yes, i may be a fan of his but some seem determined for him to get a penalty when this report described that drivers technically only have to slow when the team are given the information. He apparently did lift and if he wasn't given a penalty or even investigated, he obviously did so by enough.

milomak wrote:also i imagine the rule is not really meant to deal with the marginal decisions but drivers that really take the gherkin

Yeah that's the way to police rules, an undefined white line.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

pokerman wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I've always thought this site is excellent with getting a great deal of the radio of the drivers.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/09/07/ana ... -unfolded/

So Sainz and the Hulk blocked the track and prevented the cars from behind posting a lap time and there's no punishment, today the stewards were noticeable by their absence.

They got reprimands, so there was some.

Penalty points on their license?

pokerman wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

pokerman wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I've always thought this site is excellent with getting a great deal of the radio of the drivers.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/09/07/ana ... -unfolded/

So Sainz and the Hulk blocked the track and prevented the cars from behind posting a lap time and there's no punishment, today the stewards were noticeable by their absence.

They got reprimands, so there was some.

Penalty points on their license?

I didn't mention that? Reprimands are still effectively a penalty as you only get them if you do something wrong. and they do build up. So the stewards were not totally absent.

pokerman wrote:

milomak wrote:also i imagine the rule is not really meant to deal with the marginal decisions but drivers that really take the gherkin

Yeah that's the way to police rules, an undefined white line.

There's all manner of rules in F1 and across sport as a whole that are not 100% defined.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

pokerman wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

pokerman wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I've always thought this site is excellent with getting a great deal of the radio of the drivers.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/09/07/ana ... -unfolded/

So Sainz and the Hulk blocked the track and prevented the cars from behind posting a lap time and there's no punishment, today the stewards were noticeable by their absence.

They got reprimands, so there was some.

Penalty points on their license?

I didn't mention that? Reprimands are still effectively a penalty as you only get them if you do something wrong. and they do build up. So the stewards were not totally absent.

Without points on their license I don't see the deterrent?

pokerman wrote:

milomak wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Mayhem wrote:Fia report on Vettel investigation

https://www.fia.com/file/94207/download/28948

“ Decision: No further action.

The Stewards reviewed video evidence, heard from the driver of car 5 (Sebastian Vettel) and the team representative.
The Stewards reviewed multiple camera angles, some of which appeared to show that the tyres were not in contact with the white line of the track edge however other angles appeared to show that part of the front “wheel” (when viewed from above) may have been within the bounds of the white line. This cast an element of doubt which is considered significant enough to give the “benefit of doubt” to the driver in question.
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.”

The actual wheel is wider than the tyre contact patch, so they found an angle that obscured the contact patch of the tyre.

that's a problem with the rule.

in that any camera that is not perfectly aligned can be accused of having some element of error of parallax. and therefore any other view that is also not perfect but disputes it means you cannot have a definite answer.

The rule seems to be quite black and white, the car has to be in contact with the track and they had access to the relevant images.

yes they are black and white when it is clear you are off track

they are not so when it is marginal is what i am saying.

and if the vettel can put something that says i was on the line here, and it looks like he was on the line. then because of error of parallax, that picture is as relevant as any other you produce.

Asphalt_World wrote:

pokerman wrote:

milomak wrote:also i imagine the rule is not really meant to deal with the marginal decisions but drivers that really take the gherkin

Yeah that's the way to police rules, an undefined white line.

There's all manner of rules in F1 and across sport as a whole that are not 100% defined.

Well a white line would be one of the easiest to define, it's used in a lot of sports.

pokerman wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

pokerman wrote:

milomak wrote:also i imagine the rule is not really meant to deal with the marginal decisions but drivers that really take the gherkin

Yeah that's the way to police rules, an undefined white line.

There's all manner of rules in F1 and across sport as a whole that are not 100% defined.

Well a white line would be one of the easiest to define, it's used in a lot of sports.

And requires hawkeye or VAR to be 100% sure. Not randomly placed cameras that may or may not be looking from a good angle.

milomak wrote:

pokerman wrote:

milomak wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Mayhem wrote:Fia report on Vettel investigation

https://www.fia.com/file/94207/download/28948

“ Decision: No further action.

The Stewards reviewed video evidence, heard from the driver of car 5 (Sebastian Vettel) and the team representative.
The Stewards reviewed multiple camera angles, some of which appeared to show that the tyres were not in contact with the white line of the track edge however other angles appeared to show that part of the front “wheel” (when viewed from above) may have been within the bounds of the white line. This cast an element of doubt which is considered significant enough to give the “benefit of doubt” to the driver in question.
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.”

The actual wheel is wider than the tyre contact patch, so they found an angle that obscured the contact patch of the tyre.

that's a problem with the rule.

in that any camera that is not perfectly aligned can be accused of having some element of error of parallax. and therefore any other view that is also not perfect but disputes it means you cannot have a definite answer.

The rule seems to be quite black and white, the car has to be in contact with the track and they had access to the relevant images.

yes they are black and white when it is clear you are off track

they are not so when it is marginal is what i am saying.

and if the vettel can put something that says i was on the line here, and it looks like he was on the line. then because of error of parallax, that picture is as relevant as any other you produce.

It's not if it can't show if the car was actually in contact with the track especially when other pictures show that the car was most definitely not in contact with the track.

think of goal line tech in soccer. there are fixed cameras to make sure this is not an argument (and even there, there is an error element)

to know if seb was offline on such a marginal decision, you would need to have a picture directly above him at the time you say he has all 4 wheels off. this is clearly not possible.

personally i suspect he may have been off track by the slightest of margins. but the problem is that the laws they drew up and how they measure don't know how to account for the slightest of margins. and if you can't account for the slightest of margins, you have to choose your default.

and if the fia has a view where they cannot definitively say he is off track, then that's it

Asphalt_World wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

pokerman wrote:

milomak wrote:also i imagine the rule is not really meant to deal with the marginal decisions but drivers that really take the gherkin

Yeah that's the way to police rules, an undefined white line.

There's all manner of rules in F1 and across sport as a whole that are not 100% defined.

Well a white line would be one of the easiest to define, it's used in a lot of sports.

And requires hawkeye or VAR to be 100% sure. Not randomly placed cameras that may or may not be looking from a good angle.

The pictures are there that show that Vettel's car in physical contact with all 4 tyres outside of the white line.

pokerman wrote: The pictures are there that show that Vettel's car in physical contact with all 4 tyres outside of the white line.

please upload the pictures the stewards saw

milomak wrote:think of goal line tech in soccer. there are fixed cameras to make sure this is not an argument (and even there, there is an error element)

to know if seb was offline on such a marginal decision, you would need to have a picture directly above him at the time you say he has all 4 wheels off. this is clearly not possible.

personally i suspect he may have been off track by the slightest of margins. but the problem is that the laws they drew up and how they measure don't know how to account for the slightest of margins. and if you can't account for the slightest of margins, you have to choose your default.

In football the ball doesn't have to be in physical contact with the white line, tennis would be a better example because then it's the contact patch of the ball.

milomak wrote:

pokerman wrote: The pictures are there that show that Vettel's car in physical contact with all 4 tyres outside of the white line.

please upload the pictures the stewards saw

It's on another site and I don't know how to do it.

pokerman wrote:

milomak wrote:

pokerman wrote: The pictures are there that show that Vettel's car in physical contact with all 4 tyres outside of the white line.

please upload the pictures the stewards saw

It's on another site and I don't know how to do it.

what is it a private site?

you cannot link

you cannot download the pictures and upload them elsewhere?

you can save the images to your hard drive

then upload them using https://imgbb.com/

Albon got done in q1 and was closer to the white line than Vettel. So poor professionalism from the stewards.

Shame on us for thinking that the stewards would dare punish Ferrari at Monza to be honest

FormulaFun wrote:Shame on us for thinking that the stewards would dare punish Ferrari at Monza to be honest

punish for what?

how did bottas get a time in the 1st phase of q3?

how was the initial blocking allowed?

ferrari though. even though i hate them.

Watch the start of the 2007 Monza GP to see how Ferrari are treated in Monza. Kimi started 1.5metres ahead of his grid slot. Not even an investigation. Vettels was marginal (maybe) but so was Albon who got penalised. Bottas also got away with a slam dunk penalty. Poor day from the stewards overall.

Turns out Vettel did leave the track, by about 5-10cm. No ambiguity to it for me. You can see green between the tyre and white line.


https://out.reddit.com/t3_d0x1a4?url=ht ... ame=mweb2x

Johnson wrote:Watch the start of the 2007 Monza GP to see how Ferrari are treated in Monza. Kimi started 1.5metres ahead of his grid slot. Not even an investigation. Vettels was marginal (maybe) but so was Albon who got penalised. Bottas also got away with a slam dunk penalty. Poor day from the stewards overall.

well, ya have to give Ferrari credit for buying off the stewards whenever Monza comes around.

Why oh why doesn't the sport hire some of the regulations experts of the PF1 forum for the stewardng team? In all seriousness, how is it that so many of you seem to remember not only every suspected violation of rules (usually by a particular driver/team) , but also remember the drivers, the team, the track it took place at, and the dates as well??? I have a hard time remembering what took place yesterday!

Does anybody really care if Kimi lined up wrongly in 2007 at Monza? What is the relevance to today? Are you trying to suggest a pattern in favor of Ferrari at Monza, because that is what it appears to be. Fascinating that even with different stewarding teams, it still happens...those dastardly Italians!

Charles was very lucky. Pretty sure Vettel and even Hamilton would have gone faster on their run with the tow.

JN23 wrote:Also, can they prove Hulk deliberately missed the first chicane with telemetry? If so, then I think he should get penalised.

100% done on purpose.

Blake wrote:

Johnson wrote:Watch the start of the 2007 Monza GP to see how Ferrari are treated in Monza. Kimi started 1.5metres ahead of his grid slot. Not even an investigation. Vettels was marginal (maybe) but so was Albon who got penalised. Bottas also got away with a slam dunk penalty. Poor day from the stewards overall.

well, ya have to give Ferrari credit for buying off the stewards whenever Monza comes around.

Why oh why doesn't the sport hire some of the regulations experts of the PF1 forum for the stewardng team? In all seriousness, how is it that so many of you seem to remember not only every suspected violation of rules (usually by a particular driver/team) , but also remember the drivers, the team, the track it took place at, and the dates as well??? I have a hard time remembering what took place yesterday!

Does anybody really care if Kimi lined up wrongly in 2007 at Monza? What is the relevance to today? Are you trying to suggest a pattern in favor of Ferrari at Monza, because that is what it appears to be. Fascinating that even with different stewarding teams, it still happens...those dastardly Italians!

To quote the FIA regulations:

Drivers will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with it and, for the avoidance of doubt, any white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not.

You don't have to be a regulations expert to determine that no part of Vettel's car was in contact with the white line, the pictures are clear to see. So its either incompetence or corruption, take your pick.

Johnson wrote:Watch the start of the 2007 Monza GP to see how Ferrari are treated in Monza. Kimi started 1.5metres ahead of his grid slot. Not even an investigation. Vettels was marginal (maybe) but so was Albon who got penalised. Bottas also got away with a slam dunk penalty. Poor day from the stewards overall.

One can only assume that Hulk is about to be announced as Vettel's replacement for 2020 going by your logic.

The end of that last session was embarrassing and entirely the fault of the teams. For drivers like Vettel and Albon who had positions to gain, there is no excuse for missing out on a lap. All very silly.

Just watched the channel 4 coverage. For those saying they couldn't understand how Bottas got away with it. From a slow replay just before the finish line on his lap, you could see he was looking behind him and he looked to not be going for it as hard as he was. Even coulthard guess he had backed off a little. And this was presumably when his team had the information about the red flags and then he noticed them. If it was regarding the yellow flags that people were questioning him about ignoring, then Hamilton and Sainz didn't back off did they? Bottas did have more than the others and also the red flag, but Bottas in his interview did say that he backed off and there wasn't any investigation for any of them for speeding under yellows which several seemed to do. And from what that post on twitter said, the drivers are basically required to slow down when the teams have the information abotu the red flags. I find that a bit silly, but in that case, I don't see what Bottas did wrong. I don't think he will have seen them until just before the line, and to me, he did look to back off slightly. Even Mercedes implied he may have been first without having the yellow flags.Even to me, these apparent rules seem strange, but several drivers didn't seem to slow during the yellows. IF they didn't even get investigated and it was that clear that what Bottas did wasn't right, there will have been an incredibly obvious reason to the stewards why they didn't even bother investigating it. Something like that wouldn't go unnoticed. I thought that twitter post explained it.

It is the same as Austria and the stewards not wanting to penalise Red Bull in their home grand prix. They knew a rule had been broken by Max to win the race, hence their investigation for hours after the race, but their lack of willingness to punish the home winner with the Dutch fans in attendance for the driver too, meant they ended up not doing what they should have done and allowed the illegal win to stand.

The same here, not penalising Ferrari because it is in Italy. This really is embarrassing for the stewards, the way that they can't remain objective and impartial.

Does seem to look that way doesn't it. What I also find a bit distressing is that the teams go along with it. There are other sports where I've seem participators own up and not try to blag it to their advantage. F1 not so much.

Option or Prime wrote:Does seem to look that way doesn't it. What I also find a bit distressing is that the teams go along with it. There are other sports where I've seem participators own up and not try to blag it to their advantage. F1 not so much.

Yes, it is a real shame.

It does mean however in discussions about rule breaches from drivers and teams on this forum, we can't really mention previous stewards decisions as any kind of precedence to aid in our points, because the stewards can and do get a lot wrong. I guess occasions when stewards have penalised drivers and teams in the past can be used as examples of rule breaks to aid arguments, but previous occasions when drivers and teams went unpunished cannot be used to aid arguments as the stewards perhaps didn't penalise due to some kind of inherent bias or them generally being irrational.

Essentially I can't recall too many times when someone was penalised and they shouldn't have been, but there have been plenty of times when sufficient penalties were not dished out for clear transgressions. Leclerc's unsafe release in Germany was one recent example, where there was no time penalty as he was closing in on the leaders at the time and the stewards didn't want to interfere with a potential piece of upcoming exciting racing for the lead.

I haven't read the entire thread but are we agreeing with Lewis that it was Leclerc that was the reason for the quali farce as he was trying to protect his pole?

Covalent wrote:I haven't read the entire thread but are we agreeing with Lewis that it was Leclerc that was the reason for the quali farce as he was trying to protect his pole?

I'm certainly not. The Ferraris didn't cause it.

milomak wrote:you can save the images to your hard drive

then upload them using https://imgbb.com/

I'm not that good with computers, for someone with so much better understanding of such things I'm surprised you've not seen the images?