planetf1.com

Invade wrote:

j man wrote:Having now seen Hamilton's onboard footage from the collision, I think the penalty is correct. It was a rather desparate lunge, and steaming into the apex with a locked brake meant that a collision was pretty inevitable regardless of what Albon did. Rather uncharacteristic of Lewis in recent years, but I guess it was a case of throwing caution to the wind knowing that the championship is already sewn up.

I believe it's the aspect of locking the brakes and not being able to complete a tighter turn in that defined the decision the most, and that's probably why Hamilton was so willing to accept the blame. Hamilton was not in control of his car. There's your penalty.

The problem is Albon doesn't even give us a chance to see if LH would make the corner, as he hits him first. I think with LH's tyres he would have made the corner easily and not ended up drifting towards the outside on the corner exit.

What a race that was!

As a Ham fan I blame Lewis for going for that move. So not typical of him, but it is not a corner where overtakes usually happen so even if the gap is there it isn't sensible to just throw it on the inside like that and expect the other guy to see it coming. He was just desperate to catch up to Max and beat him. That is what I got from that.

The Vettel Leclerc incident is very much on Vettel imo. It was a classic Vettel move, as he chops in front of the car he overtakes as soon as he thinks he is clear of it. Problem is that he is not always clear of the car before he chops. Almost a carbon copy of him and Bottas at Hungary last year, where he came out unscathed, but ruined Bottas's race.

The Merc's power seemed to suffer at the altitude, more so than the other engines, for whatever reason. But Honda is pretty much on par with them now. They have caught on. It's up to Redbull to design a car that can run hard with Merc and Ferrari for the whole year imo.

kleefton wrote:What a race that was!

As a Ham fan I blame Lewis for going for that move. So not typical of him, but it is not a corner where overtakes usually happen so even if the gap is there it isn't sensible to just throw it on the inside like that and expect the other guy to see it coming. He was just desperate to catch up to Max and beat him. That is what I got from that.

The Vettel Leclerc incident is very much on Vettel imo. It was a classic Vettel move, as he chops in front of the car he overtakes as soon as he thinks he is clear of it. Problem is that he is not always clear of the car before he chops. Almost a carbon copy of him and Bottas at Hungary last year, where he came out unscathed, but ruined Bottas's race.

The Merc's power seemed to suffer at the altitude, more so than the other engines, for whatever reason. But Honda is pretty much on par with them now. They have caught on. It's up to Redbull to design a car that can run hard with Merc and Ferrari for the whole year imo.

Are you not of the belief that Red Bull deliberately scupper their second driver? What if Max is just that good? Just asking.

I'm convinced that if Red Bull can provide a competitive car, then Max can bring them the WDC even against Mercedes and Lewis. I'd expect a titanic battle between them.

The pivotal Vettel/Leclerc battle was actually on the Reta Oposta directly after the last restart. Vettel had a much worse run on to the straight after loosing out to Albon through the esses. He made a severe move to stop CLC from getting past. From a Ferrari POV given the tyre situation that probably cost them a podium for Leclerc. All things being happy and working for the best team result it would have made sense for Vettel to let him go.

No further action on the Vettel-Leclerc collision

.

Re. Vettel/Leclerc this was just Vettel channelling his inner Schumaker - only when Schumaker did it he launched his teammate's car into the air and was undamaged himself - and, of course, he got away without a penalty.

.

No penalty for Sainz!

Clarky wrote:No further action on the Vettel-Leclerc collision

Because they are teammates and keeping the narrative that they are both to blame and it's ''teammates at war'' is healthier for the sport presumably.

I agree with the penalty against Hamilton.

I am at loss, however, why Vettel did not receive one. His move had the potential to cause a really dangerous accident. Was he let off just because his license points are closing in on a ban?

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:I agree with the penalty against Hamilton.

I am at loss, however, why Vettel did not receive one. His move had the potential to cause a really dangerous accident. Was he let off just because his license points are closing in on a ban?

Part of it is probably that he retired himself as well - this may be seen as punishment enough.

F1 Racer wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:

Invade wrote:
I'm somewhat confused by this response? But okie dokie.

I am sure. You are speaking about Vettel and Leclerc, and I was speaking about the commentators, upset at them.

Seb was ahead after passing on the outside in turn 3 and naturally he was going to pull of Charles along the straight. But for some reason, this is a completely unexpected move. Whereas Hamilton spearing Albon of the track is quite expected and usual, despite Hamilton accepting his own error. They are still sitting there saying it is more Albon's fault that his. I find the commentary ridiculous. Truly that is my only opinion here.

As to the incident, I accept people calling it for Seb or Charles, I will call it a race incident. Ferrari lost.

What? You didn't see Vettel turn left into Leclerc half way down the straight?

I will discuss the incident with you - I was not discussing the incident above, I was discussing the commentating.


As I see it, Charles had not given up the fight. After Vettel passed him on the outside of turn 3, and came out ahead on the subsequent straight, Charles had no intention of letting Vettel cover him off. He stayed to the middle - right of the track, knowing that Seb was planning to cover him off. When Seb made his move, Charles anticipated this - knowing exactly what Seb was going to try to do and purposely gave no quarter at all, figuring like Bottas, Seb would buck. But Seb, figuring it was his teammate, did not expect this behavior. He believed Charles would allow him to cover him off considering how far ahead he was (incident was Seb's rear right with Charles front left), and then come back along the straight with DRS and make a battle of it. But Charles is not mature enough for that yet. Like Verstappen of old, he still has the mindset of a rookie and makes poor decisions. He's getting better, but until he does, this is going to happen. Vettel has to recognize his teammate's immaturity and make concessions for this when they go wheel to wheel. Thus, I do lay blame with both. Avoidable, but since both are to blame, race incident. This is what Mattias said as well - you have to see this from the point of view of both drivers, so I agree with him on this.

You are incorrect, Leclerc held his line as he is entitled to do. SV moved across into him, which was silly.

It was a small mistake from SV and it didn't deserve the fall out of two cars retiring like that, but nonetheless it was 100% SV's fault.

I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. This isn't Karts. Leclerc knows exactly what is going on out there. He was not 'blindsided' by the move, but expected it. You simply can't blame one driver if the other driver could have avoided it and didn't even try, like here. On the contrary, Charles was daring him.

Flash2k11 wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:
Hamilton moved over even earlier and wrecked his competitor. Do you think he believed with his "veteran" mindset that what he did would work? You believe he had no thought of what Albon might do? Do you think he intended to crash or has he no spatial awareness either? Come on man. Seb knew exactly where he was. That was not the issue.

Not discussing Hamilton, and attempting to deflect the conversation says a lot about your own position.

You are discussing the entire grid. But I am not permitted to do so? You said Vettel has spatial awareness issues - as compared to whom? Himself? My point is that it is not spatial awareness, it is not anticipating certain driving behavior from others.

Vettel moved over on Leclerc too early and touched him, and wrecked both their races. This is indisputible fact in relation to the video evidence.

Indisputible? Then our discussion is pointless.

It's also the latest in a long line of incidents that Vettel has been involved in that call into question his spatial awareness.... I think it's a legitimate conclusion that it is definitely a weakness of his compared to the rest of the front runners.

Your conclusion.

Trying to paint night as day does you no favours; As a 'proper' Vettel fan (and I mean that as a compliment, because I know you are), accept his limitations and the fact that he was wrong in this scenario. No driver is infallible, especially the guys at the front.

That's your best argument? Accept what I say like a good little Vettel fan? Okay then, lol.

bourbon19 wrote: I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. This isn't Karts. Leclerc knows exactly what is going on out there. He was not 'blindsided' by the move, but expected it. You simply can't blame one driver if the other driver could have avoided it and didn't even try, like here. On the contrary, Charles was daring him.

Seriously.....what was he doing then blowing rasberries at him? Even if he was Vettel 4X WDC reacts to take them both out! Ever heard of self control?

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:I agree with the penalty against Hamilton.

I am at loss, however, why Vettel did not receive one. His move had the potential to cause a really dangerous accident. Was he let off just because his license points are closing in on a ban?

Regardless of penalty points, I really start to wonder if Vettel should be due a race ban anyway just for the sheer number of accidents he has caused over the past couple of years. Grosjean was banned for less.

Has anybody noticed that McLaren and Honda have at long last met on the podium?

bourbon19 wrote:
You are discussing the entire grid. But I am not permitted to do so? You said Vettel has spatial awareness issues - as compared to whom? Himself? My point is that it is not spatial awareness, it is not anticipating certain driving behavior from others.

I think it's unreasonable to see this as a result of "driving behavior" from others. If driving straight qualifies as a "behavior" then I'll need to re-learn everything I know about racing. Leclerc was driving in a straight line on a straightaway. He did not deviate from his path nor did he crowd Vettel at all once Seb was alongside him. There was no "behavior" from Leclerc there. I'm the first to say that Charles's defending has crossed the line at times this year but this was not a case of Charles doing something dangerous. This was a case of Vettel moving across Charles before he was clear of him (something Sebastian has been guilty of numerous times over the years).

bourbon19 wrote:

Invade wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:

Invade wrote:Tough times to be a Vettel fan TBH, generally speaking. But hey, he wins races and most of the grid doesn't.

Tough times to be a Brundle fan, generally speaking. But hey, he gets most the speaking gigs whereas most of the race journos don't.
Someday I'll make a point on these threads and it will be understood. Someday.

I'm somewhat confused by this response? But okie dokie.

I am sure. You are speaking about Vettel and Leclerc, and I was speaking about the commentators, upset at them.

Seb was ahead after passing on the outside in turn 3 and naturally he was going to pull ahead of Charles along the straight, to the left. But for some reason, this is a completely unexpected move. Whereas Hamilton spearing Albon of the track is quite expected and usual, despite Hamilton accepting his own error. They are still sitting there saying it is more Albon's fault that his. I find the commentary ridiculous. Truly that is my only opinion here.

As to the incident, I accept people calling it for Seb or Charles, I will call it a race incident. Ferrari lost.

No idea what incident you have been watching however Leclerc cleanly passed Vettel through turn one, and was completely ahead all the way through turns two and three. So why you are claiming Vettel was passing Leclerc through turn three is baffling.

When Vettel was side by side with Leclerc on the straight, he started to drift to the left and away from the edge of the track. Leclerc remained driving straight, unable to see Vettel drifting towards him in his blind spot.

Vettel seems to have a history of inadvertently drifting into other cars or inadvertently pushing other drivers off the track on the straights which is perhaps why a few posters are questioning his spatial awareness.

P-F1 Mod wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:I agree with the penalty against Hamilton.

I am at loss, however, why Vettel did not receive one. His move had the potential to cause a really dangerous accident. Was he let off just because his license points are closing in on a ban?

Part of it is probably that he retired himself as well - this may be seen as punishment enough.

I have to wonder how that appeases Leclerc though?

sandman1347 wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:
You are discussing the entire grid. But I am not permitted to do so? You said Vettel has spatial awareness issues - as compared to whom? Himself? My point is that it is not spatial awareness, it is not anticipating certain driving behavior from others.

I think it's unreasonable to see this as a result of "driving behavior" from others. If driving straight qualifies as a "behavior" then I'll need to re-learn everything I know about racing. Leclerc was driving in a straight line on a straightaway. He did not deviate from his path nor did he crowd Vettel at all once Seb was alongside him. There was no "behavior" from Leclerc there. I'm the first to say that Charles's defending has crossed the line at times this year but this was not a case of Charles doing something dangerous. This was a case of Vettel moving across Charles before he was clear of him (something Sebastian has been guilty of numerous times over the years).

So should Norris have continued straight on when Leclerc turned sharply into him on the opening lap?

I just came here to say...

VAMOS CARLOS!

F1-Dave wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:

Invade wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:

Invade wrote:Tough times to be a Vettel fan TBH, generally speaking. But hey, he wins races and most of the grid doesn't.

Tough times to be a Brundle fan, generally speaking. But hey, he gets most the speaking gigs whereas most of the race journos don't.
Someday I'll make a point on these threads and it will be understood. Someday.

I'm somewhat confused by this response? But okie dokie.

I am sure. You are speaking about Vettel and Leclerc, and I was speaking about the commentators, upset at them.

Seb was ahead after passing on the outside in turn 3 and naturally he was going to pull ahead of Charles along the straight, to the left. But for some reason, this is a completely unexpected move. Whereas Hamilton spearing Albon of the track is quite expected and usual, despite Hamilton accepting his own error. They are still sitting there saying it is more Albon's fault that his. I find the commentary ridiculous. Truly that is my only opinion here.

As to the incident, I accept people calling it for Seb or Charles, I will call it a race incident. Ferrari lost.

No idea what incident you have been watching however Leclerc cleanly passed Vettel through turn one, and was completely ahead all the way through turns two and three. So why you are claiming Vettel was passing Leclerc through turn three is baffling.

When Vettel was side by side with Leclerc on the straight, he started to drift to the left and away from the edge of the track. Leclerc remained driving straight, unable to see Vettel drifting towards him in his blind spot.

Vettel seems to have a history of inadvertently drifting into other cars or inadvertently pushing other drivers off the track on the straights which is perhaps why a few posters are questioning his spatial awareness.

What Vettel did today was more F1 online lobby driving. I literally had the same incident two nights ago. Bewildering.

Bourbon.... man, literally everyone's telling you you're wrong. You're completely blinded by your fandom on this one, Im not even sure you watched the incident on tele

I've just got in and read all the posts to see if they tally with my views of the race, I managed to watch the race on a phone but with no sound so there might be certain things I'm not aware of.

First point of interest is why the SC for Bottas' car, and that seems a unanimous opinion, I even question if it needed a VSC, a local yellow would have sufficed, I'm sorry but all I see here is it allowing Ferrari back into the race.

Second point is yet again the woeful strategy from Mercedes in regards to Hamilton, the first stop was good but I have to say with the benefit of minutes to work it out, when the suspect SC gets called and a decision has to be made in seconds rather than minutes then Vowles can't make a decision. Hamilton could have made a free pit stop on to fresh tyres but having to think quick yet again Vowles gets stuck in the headlights. For Red Bull it was the immediate obvious thing to do, they probably thought it would be the obvious play by Mercedes?

This then left Hamilton vulnerable to all the cars behind him on fresher, softer tyres which then also seemed to trigger the pit stop after the second late SC to make amends for the earlier error, a crazy thing to do with only 5 laps to go and losing Hamilton 2 positions on the track. I understand that was Hamilton's call but damage had already been done with Hamilton making an unwise call perhaps because he can't 100% trust Vowles?

The third point is the collision between Vettel and Leclerc, I instantly called it as being Vettel's fault but now it's a rule that if you crash your teammate out then it doesn't matter?

For comparison I instantly called the 5 second penalty on Hamilton for hitting and spinning Albon and that seemingly was administered within minutes, not the hours it took to penalise Leclerc for basically crashing Verstappen out of a race.

Yet again I'm unimpressed by Masi's decisions, an uncalled for SC, penalty points on Hamilton's license whilst Vettel gets nothing.

pokerman wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:I agree with the penalty against Hamilton.

I am at loss, however, why Vettel did not receive one. His move had the potential to cause a really dangerous accident. Was he let off just because his license points are closing in on a ban?

Part of it is probably that he retired himself as well - this may be seen as punishment enough.

I have to wonder how that appeases Leclerc though?

I don't disagree, just suggesting that's why there was no action taken.

Just in case anyone wants to review video evidence of the crash:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKYB4fDz5Vc

Invade wrote:

kleefton wrote:What a race that was!

As a Ham fan I blame Lewis for going for that move. So not typical of him, but it is not a corner where overtakes usually happen so even if the gap is there it isn't sensible to just throw it on the inside like that and expect the other guy to see it coming. He was just desperate to catch up to Max and beat him. That is what I got from that.

The Vettel Leclerc incident is very much on Vettel imo. It was a classic Vettel move, as he chops in front of the car he overtakes as soon as he thinks he is clear of it. Problem is that he is not always clear of the car before he chops. Almost a carbon copy of him and Bottas at Hungary last year, where he came out unscathed, but ruined Bottas's race.

The Merc's power seemed to suffer at the altitude, more so than the other engines, for whatever reason. But Honda is pretty much on par with them now. They have caught on. It's up to Redbull to design a car that can run hard with Merc and Ferrari for the whole year imo.

Are you not of the belief that Red Bull deliberately scupper their second driver? What if Max is just that good? Just asking.

I'm convinced that if Red Bull can provide a competitive car, then Max can bring them the WDC even against Mercedes and Lewis. I'd expect a titanic battle between them.

I expect this as well, we saw this today with the superiority of the Red Bull strategy team of being able to make quick and correct decisions.

P-F1 Mod wrote:

pokerman wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:I agree with the penalty against Hamilton.

I am at loss, however, why Vettel did not receive one. His move had the potential to cause a really dangerous accident. Was he let off just because his license points are closing in on a ban?

Part of it is probably that he retired himself as well - this may be seen as punishment enough.

I have to wonder how that appeases Leclerc though?

I don't disagree, just suggesting that's why there was no action taken.

Yeah but for me it's just again unfortunate that yet again a question has to be asked, why no penalty for a Ferrari driver?

Rockie wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:
You are discussing the entire grid. But I am not permitted to do so? You said Vettel has spatial awareness issues - as compared to whom? Himself? My point is that it is not spatial awareness, it is not anticipating certain driving behavior from others.

I think it's unreasonable to see this as a result of "driving behavior" from others. If driving straight qualifies as a "behavior" then I'll need to re-learn everything I know about racing. Leclerc was driving in a straight line on a straightaway. He did not deviate from his path nor did he crowd Vettel at all once Seb was alongside him. There was no "behavior" from Leclerc there. I'm the first to say that Charles's defending has crossed the line at times this year but this was not a case of Charles doing something dangerous. This was a case of Vettel moving across Charles before he was clear of him (something Sebastian has been guilty of numerous times over the years).

So should Norris have continued straight on when Leclerc turned sharply into him on the opening lap?

That's irrelevant and there is no point in deflecting. Perhaps Norris avoided a collision there on lap one while Charles did not avoid the collision with Vettel. That has no relevance with regards to who is at fault. If, in fact, Charles forced Norris into avoiding action then the collision would have been Charles's fault had Norris not avoided it.

pokerman wrote:I've just got in and read all the posts to see if they tally with my views of the race, I managed to watch the race on a phone but with no sound so there might be certain things I'm not aware of.

First point of interest is why the SC for Bottas' car, and that seems a unanimous opinion, I even question if it needed a VSC, a local yellow would have sufficed, I'm sorry but all I see here is it allowing Ferrari back into the race.

Second point is yet again the woeful strategy from Mercedes in regards to Hamilton, the first stop was good but I have to say with the benefit of minutes to work it out, when the suspect SC gets called and a decision has to be made in seconds rather than minutes then Vowles can't make a decision. Hamilton could have made a free pit stop on to fresh tyres but having to think quick yet again Vowles gets stuck in the headlights. For Red Bull it was the immediate obvious thing to do, they probably thought it would be the obvious play by Mercedes?

This then left Hamilton vulnerable to all the cars behind him on fresher, softer tyres which then also seemed to trigger the pit stop after the second late SC to make amends for the earlier error, a crazy thing to do with only 5 laps to go and losing Hamilton 2 positions on the track. I understand that was Hamilton's call but damage had already been done with Hamilton making an unwise call perhaps because he can't 100% trust Vowles?

The third point is the collision between Vettel and Leclerc, I instantly called it as being Vettel's fault but now it's a rule that if you crash your teammate out then it doesn't matter?

For comparison I instantly called the 5 second penalty on Hamilton for hitting and spinning Albon and that seemingly was administered within minutes, not the hours it took to penalise Leclerc for basically crashing Verstappen out of a race.

Yet again I'm unimpressed by Masi's decisions, an uncalled for SC, penalty points on Hamilton's license whilst Vettel gets nothing.

Agree with you on all counts here, but for me the SC is the biggest thing. For me it was completely unnecessary and it made the race feel to me like it was completely contrived, we were in for a good race to the flag with various drivers throughout the field and instead they call a ridiculous SC that completely alters the race for no reason. We have about 6 laps behind a SC for no reason - honestly I think that they brought out the SC for reasons others than safety and that reallllllly irritates me.

pokerman wrote:I've just got in and read all the posts to see if they tally with my views of the race, I managed to watch the race on a phone but with no sound so there might be certain things I'm not aware of.

First point of interest is why the SC for Bottas' car, and that seems a unanimous opinion, I even question if it needed a VSC, a local yellow would have sufficed, I'm sorry but all I see here is it allowing Ferrari back into the race.

Second point is yet again the woeful strategy from Mercedes in regards to Hamilton, the first stop was good but I have to say with the benefit of minutes to work it out, when the suspect SC gets called and a decision has to be made in seconds rather than minutes then Vowles can't make a decision. Hamilton could have made a free pit stop on to fresh tyres but having to think quick yet again Vowles gets stuck in the headlights. For Red Bull it was the immediate obvious thing to do, they probably thought it would be the obvious play by Mercedes?

This then left Hamilton vulnerable to all the cars behind him on fresher, softer tyres which then also seemed to trigger the pit stop after the second late SC to make amends for the earlier error, a crazy thing to do with only 5 laps to go and losing Hamilton 2 positions on the track. I understand that was Hamilton's call but damage had already been done with Hamilton making an unwise call perhaps because he can't 100% trust Vowles?

The third point is the collision between Vettel and Leclerc, I instantly called it as being Vettel's fault but now it's a rule that if you crash your teammate out then it doesn't matter?

For comparison I instantly called the 5 second penalty on Hamilton for hitting and spinning Albon and that seemingly was administered within minutes, not the hours it took to penalise Leclerc for basically crashing Verstappen out of a race.

Yet again I'm unimpressed by Masi's decisions, an uncalled for SC, penalty points on Hamilton's license whilst Vettel gets nothing.

I think Hamilton pushed for the undercut at the first stop, there was the issue with the battery what got Hamilton angry then at the final stop Mercedes believed Hamilton would lose just 1 place when he actually lost 2. Red bulls pitstops are also excellent.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/11/17/ham ... des-admit/

poker - I agree 100% about the safety car. That was just stupid and it would be a much bigger deal if not for the fact that the titles are already decided.

Wow what a race.

Congratulations to Verstappen, he wasn’t letting that go.

Hamilton being over enthusiastic, feel sorry for Albon (and Sainz missing his Podium)

Ferrari, what can they do? Vettel seems unable to keep his car in a straight line, moves right across into his team mate , Turkey 2010 all over again!

B

I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

Yeah I considered that too but I wonder why they didn't just leave the car there rather than disrupting the race the way they did. The car was safely out of harms way.

sandman1347 wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

Yeah I considered that too but I wonder why they didn't just leave the car there rather than disrupting the race the way they did. The car was safely out of harms way.

The "out of harm's way" argument seems to no longer exist in F1. I can see the logic from a safety angle, but it causes these messes. Of course, if they left a car at the side of the road and someone managed to hit it, there'd be uproar.

Brazil - the only track with the tradition of swapping podium places! Would've loved to see Sainz in the original podium ceremony.

P-F1 Mod wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:I'm not defending the SC decisions, but it seems that as soon as a tractor is needed on track, the SC is deployed. Probably a change in protocol to prevent a repeat of Bianchi.

Yeah I considered that too but I wonder why they didn't just leave the car there rather than disrupting the race the way they did. The car was safely out of harms way.

The "out of harm's way" argument seems to no longer exist in F1. I can see the logic from a safety angle, but it causes these messes. Of course, if they left a car at the side of the road and someone managed to hit it, there'd be uproar.

They could have just used the VSC for 20 seconds though, that is what it is there for. Instead we had the SC for the next 5 minutes.

We should be seeing the VSC way more often than the SC, but in reality we hardly ever see the VSC. I don't like the fact that these calls to interfere with the race in a HUGE way can just be made willy nilly and unfettered by people that could potentially be doing it to spice up the show in a contrived way.

How ironic how the real racing didn't begin until after the championship was decided. Every man for himself. Even Lewis who really had nothing to prove other than to prove that he's fastest of the pack. I would've preferred Lewis take things easy and coast to finish. There was no need for him to get into the thicke of things

JN23 wrote:Was Norris unlucky with safety car timing or was his pace poor (or both I guess)? How did he end up multiple places behind Sainz after starting 10 places ahead?

Anyone?

Really not happy with the way the stewarding is going this year. I don't think i'm the only one who thinks the stewards had half an eye on Vettel's ever increasing penalty point count (which now doesn't decrease until the middle of next year) when deciding no further action.

Driving into someone like that is surely the textbook definition of an avoidable incident?

The SC call was pretty bogus too, Bottas' car was fine where it was. Then we have the blind eye turned to driving like the move Leclerc pulled on Norris at the start of the race. If that kind of chop is now deemed acceptable conduct then it wont be long before we have another car getting launched into the air via tangled wheels. They gave Verstappen an inch in Austra and now a lot of them are taking the whole mile with this kind of driving.

JN23 wrote:

JN23 wrote:Was Norris unlucky with safety car timing or was his pace poor (or both I guess)? How did he end up multiple places behind Sainz after starting 10 places ahead?

Anyone?

His side of the garage got the strategy wrong. He (like Bottas) committed to a one-stop on the Hard early on, but was forced to abandon it after it became clear the tyre was too slow. Sainz made the idea one-stop strategy work, and did indeed benefit from the safety cars bunching the field twice.