The F1 thread

[Maturin]

Compared to this one, I think Vettel's penalty was more clear cut and correct - in terms of application of the rules as they are written.

The corner-related overtaking rules give the stewards more room for manoeuvre, since there are precedents for cars being slightly ahead having right of way on the corner exit. But it can directly conflict with the rules surrounding giving other cars enough room on the circuit. Which I guess is what happened here and why it took so long.

Although I'm glad he kept the race win, Verstappen's a lucky boy here I reckon. Obviously he was quicker than Leclerc and he drove brilliantly, but a different bunch of stewards on the day could have just as easily given him a 5 second penalty.

[DjchunKfunK]

I think there are two big differences between this and the Vettel one. Firstly Vettel's was about safely joining the track again and secondly there was a wall on the corner so Vettel was endangering another driver with the way he moved to crowd Hamilton out. It would have been interesting to see how it would have gone if there had been a wall there but it's unlikely that Vestappen would have made the same move if there was. Ultimately they got it right as he was slightly in-front and therefore technically had the racing line, it was just hard racing.

As to the sudden clamour to say that F1 is back, one swallow does not a summer make.

[Raid]

Yeah, I had no issues with it being examined by the stewards, but I'm glad there was no action taken. The way I see it, there was no way Leclerc would have been able to maintain his position given that he'd positioned his car on the outside of the corner. The tap from Verstappen was perhaps a little rude and unnecessary, but it didn't appear deliberate, and he'd won the corner by that point anyway. The only way Leclerc could have kept the lead is by taking an advantage outside of track limits (something that those ferocious kerbs at the Red Bull Ring do a good job at preventing).

A lot was made of the kerbs on the Sky coverage, as there were a good number of front wings damaged by running over them. The team bosses said pretty unanimously that they were unnecessary, but I have to agree with the pundits in saying that they were a welcome addition to prevent cars exceeding track limits. So long as they're placed to avoid launching cars, I say other tracks should implement them too.

[Wrathbone]

I wonder how plausible it is that the kerbs could unfairly damage the car of someone who has gone off track for legitimate reasons (e.g. taking evasive action to avoid a crash, or someone bashing them off track). Surely gravel traps are better in that there's strong incentive to stay on track, but a quick jaunt over them probably won't be race-ending.

[Raid]

Gravel traps are certainly the best deterrent for F1 cars, but I think the argument against them is that they're worse for motorbike riders. Kerbs are at least less permanent than massive gravel traps (although I think the removeable ones aren't very common - most ones I can recall seeing have been concrete).

[DjchunKfunK]

Listened to the Chequered Flag podcast today and I can see the argument for why Verstappen should have maybe received a penalty. The way they phrase it is that if that is a fair overtake then what is to stop drivers from doing that every corner, just forcing the driver off the track when they are level. The rules do state that you should give the driver a cars width of space and Verstappen didn't do that. I guess it comes down to how far in front do you need to be in order to have 'won' the corner and not have to give that space. Verstappen was centremeters in-front, is that enough?

I also think that if it wasn't for the Vettel incident and the scrutiny that has suddenly been shone on these decisions he would have got a penalty. I reckon part of the reason why they took so long is because they were debating whether it was worth giving the penalty and how that could effect the sport.

[Wrathbone]

Agreed on all of that. I still think the right decision was made, but it was a highly marginal move. If he hadn’t been ahead by a tiny amount then I’d have to concede that it deserves a penalty (or at least he should have been told immediately to give back the position). Yet he was ahead, barely, and since F1 is about pushing things to the limits, I think that should count.

What I hope doesn’t happen is that the stewards look at this and decide that it requires more rule clarification. The last thing F1 needs is more disincentive to make risky overtakes and more penalties determining the outcome of races.

[DjchunKfunK]

Well the argument for more clarification would be that being centremeters ahead isn't really ahead and you shouldn't be pulling off risky moves unless you can make them stick, and if you don't you should be punished. Don't forget the reason why these rules came into force is because people like Schumacher were just ramming cars off the road and not bothering to try and make the corner in a fair way.

I get that there are few overtakes as it is but that is a wider issue and I don't think we should avoid clarifying rules so that they are more consistent just because it might reduce some overtakes.

[Wrathbone]

Well the argument for more clarification would be that being centremeters ahead isn't really ahead and you shouldn't be pulling off risky moves unless you can make them stick, and if you don't you should be punished.

Ahead is ahead. If you start specifying how far ahead someone needs to be, it gets too complex to be useful. Does it count if they're ahead by x amount at any point during the corner? Before the corner? At a certain point on the corner? If you make a rule too specific, you end up having to introduce other rules to clarify the original rule and end up convincing drivers not to race. I'd rather see a driver try a risky move and fail than not bother at all because he's liable to get penalised for having a go, and the way you achieve that is by having an ethos that drivers are expected to adhere to. Technical infringements can be codified, but racing ethics are an art, not a science, and it requires an understanding between the drivers and the stewards as to what is considered acceptable racing. It's rightly legislated by common sense and consensus, not absolute law.

With the Verstappen incident, the consensus seems to be that he was pushing his luck but made a fair move. If an F1 driver can't push their luck in an overtake in the final laps to take the win then it's not really F1 anymore.

[DjchunKfunK]

I think it needs more clarification than 'ahead' because that leads to too much interpretation. On another day the Verstappen win gets reversed and that's not good for the sport to have that ambiguity.

[arqueturus]

Gravel traps are certainly the best deterrent for F1 cars, but I think the argument against them is that they're worse for motorbike riders. Kerbs are at least less permanent than massive gravel traps (although I think the removeable ones aren't very common - most ones I can recall seeing have been concrete).

Gravel traps are much safer for motorbike riders - tarmaced areas are consider much more dangerous (they don't slow the bike rider down), indeed Luis Salom was killing Barcelona due to a tarmaced area and then into the wall.

[Raid]

Good race, that, but once again the win is decided by the victor pitting under the safety car. I really think the sport could do with figuring out a way to stop that from happening. Bottas did everything right this week, and he even fought hard to retain the lead, and to lose the race (or at least to lose any chance of fighting for the win) because another car on the other side of the track went into a gravel trap at the wrong moment just feels so unfair.

I don't really know what to suggest to prevent this from happening. You can't just close the pit lane as they did in years past, because this has a heavy impact on people pitting afterwards once the field is bunched up. Perhaps they could add on the time difference that is saved by pitting under safety car conditions, but then you'd have the issue with race results being changed after the race ends.

[eny]

Bottas would have 2-stopped regardless, so Hamilton was going to get there sooner or later.

[Wrathbone]

Good race, that, but once again the win is decided by the victor pitting under the safety car. I really think the sport could do with figuring out a way to stop that from happening. Bottas did everything right this week, and he even fought hard to retain the lead, and to lose the race (or at least to lose any chance of fighting for the win) because another car on the other side of the track went into a gravel trap at the wrong moment just feels so unfair.

I don't really know what to suggest to prevent this from happening. You can't just close the pit lane as they did in years past, because this has a heavy impact on people pitting afterwards once the field is bunched up. Perhaps they could add on the time difference that is saved by pitting under safety car conditions, but then you'd have the issue with race results being changed after the race ends.

I don’t think there’s any great solution to it. Anticipating potential safety cars is part of every strategy, but ultimately it is a gamble. It’s a similar gamble with rain, although weather data does mitigate that somewhat. You can’t account for every possibility in a race, and no champion wins without a little bit of luck. Adding more rules to try and counter that would, I think, make things worse.

Vettel seems to be on a downward spiral with no end in sight. It looked like he was so focused on staying with Verstappen that he forgot to brake until it was too late, which for a driver at his level is an astounding gaffe. It’s like he was channelling Maldonado. I hope he finds a way to sort himself out, but I could see him retiring sooner rather than later if that edge continues to dull.

[DjchunKfunK]

I don't think it is so much Vettel getting worse, he's always been liable to the odd mistake, it's just when he first came into the sport he was in the best car so mistakes were mitigated by the fact he was winning a lot of races. Now when he isn't winning races the mistakes look a lot worse.

Even though the safety car helped Hamilton I think he would have won anyway because he was going for a one stop race, it would have been closer but the fact that Hamilton was able to put in the fastest lap right at the end on the hard tyres showed that he had the pace to beat Bottas.

I enjoyed seeing the safety car come out, after a couple of races with wide run-off areas and no real punishment for drivers messing up it was nice to see one punished for a mistake.