Grand Prix 2019 Canadian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion

Back in 1991 Nigel Mansell had been persuaded not retire after his time at Ferrari and re-joined Williams. What took him back to Williams was the first Adrian Newey design Williams F1 car, the FW14. The 1991 car did not have the infamous active suspension of the FW14B but it was still a very advanced racing car.

The car proved fast but unreliable in the early races. Patrese took a second place in Brazil and Mansell the same in Monaco, in the other races the Williams failed to finish.

Then came Canada.

Patrese put his car on Pole, 0.4 seconds quicker than Mansell. At the start of the race Mansell took the lead and there he stayed for 68 laps. Meanwhile Patrese was having trouble with his gearbox and was passed by Nelson Piquet in the Benetton and Stefano Modeno in the Tyrrell.

Mansell was cruising at the front. On lap 65 he set the fastest lap and was stroking the car home. On the final lap he was over a minute ahead of Piquet and looked set to take his first victory on his return to Williams. As he approached the hairpin for the final time the car slowed, it rounded the hairpin and as Nigel attempted to accelerate down the straight towards the chicane the car simply wouldn't go. The Englishman vented his frustration and beat the steering wheel as the machine dribbled to a halt in front of one of the main grandstands. He got out and left the car where it was.

How could Mansell lose the race so close to the finish? When the car got back to the pits the engine started, the gearbox worked fine and it probably could have done another race. Unfortunately Nigel had let the revs drop too low as he approached the hairpin which lost electrical and hydraulic power causing the gearbox barrel to get stuck.

Meanwhile his nemesis, Nelson Piquet, over half a lap behind, kept it all together and cruised past to take what would be his last victory in F1 in his last season in the sport.

What of 2019? Expect a Mercedes front row with Hamilton on pole. Lewis will take a lights to flag victory and, I suspect, a Grand Chelem. Enjoy.

 

[Izumi]

.https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/06/11/binotto-seb-could-not-have-done-anything-different/

From sidelines that's what I thought as well..

 

[olegg]

That's Hamilton basically saying "some you win, some you lose". Hopefully he'll remember that when he's next on the wrong end of a dubious decision.

You make it sound like Hamilton hasn't been on the other side of questionable decisions many times.
And in much more controversial situations than in this case with Vettel.
Suffice it to recall the situation with Raikkonen at the SPA 2008, when Hamilton lost the victory after the award
and with Button in Canada 2010, when Button hit Hamilton in the wall.

 

[sobriety]

It probably got lost in translation, but "when he's next" implies that he has before

 

[Ruslan]

I don't have a problem with the wording of art 27.3, but it clearly refers to a car re-entering the track when the driver has some control of it, if you have no control the strict intepretation of that rule means that you are punished for making a mistake which sounds a bit extreme to me.

Well apparently, if we believe the Autosport article, the five stewards did decide that Vettel had control and could of avoided blocking the racing line. It was a unanimous decision that included Emanuele Pirro, who has stewarded many times before.

Regarding "gaining any lasting advantage" that is clearly out of the question because when Vettel committed to that turn he was over a second clear of Hamilton, after he re-joined the track Hamilton had to brake to avoid hitting him so Vettel had lost any advantage that he had when he made his mistake.

But in the past....that has been interpreted in other races as having to give up the position (again Mexico 2016). So, it does not appear that losing a second relative to your opponent counts as such.

There is precedence that Vettel had to surrender the position regardless.

But the point is that according to what is available on the web (Autosport and many other web sites) Vettel was punished because Hamilton had to brake in order to avoid hitting Vettel, what they are saying is that since Vettel left the track he had to give his position to Hamilton. To my knowledge they are not charging him for re-joining the track unsafely, it's not as if he had any option, he was lucky not to hit the barriers, the stewards know that full well.

I gather from the Autosport article, courtesy of Brogan, it was Vettel's decision to "drift to the right" that made them decide against Vettel. I have not seen anything on the stewards' reasoning beyond the Autosport article.

But, if they had not enforced the rule based upon that....then I suspect they had to enforce the rule based on their past interpretations and the precedence established on the interpretation of "gaining any lasting advantage."

The way the rules are currently written and interpreted and the precedence established, the moment Vettel left the track he lost his lead, regardless of the exact interpretation or reasoning used. Again, check the video I posted of Mexico in 2016. That is clearly how it was interpreted then.

Forgive my (pseudo) lawyer-like argument.

 

[Speshal]

This thread is like two eunuchs arguing about who has the bigger balls.

 

[sobriety]

The answer is "James Hunt"

 

[Izumi]

Well apparently, if we believe the Autosport article, the five stewards did decide that Vettel had control and could of avoided blocking the racing line. It was a unanimous decision that included Emanuele Pirro, who has stewarded many times before.



But in the past....that has been interpreted in other races as having to give up the position (again Mexico 2016). So, it does not appear that losing a second relative to your opponent counts as such.

There is precedence that Vettel had to surrender the position regardless.



I gather from the Autosport article, courtesy of Brogan, it was Vettel's decision to "drift to the right" that made them decide against Vettel. I have not seen anything on the stewards' reasoning beyond the Autosport article.

But, if they had not enforced the rule based upon that....then I suspect they had to enforce the rule based on their past interpretations and the precedence established on the interpretation of "gaining any lasting advantage."

The way the rules are currently written and interpreted and the precedence established, the moment Vettel left the track he lost his lead, regardless of the exact interpretation or reasoning used. Again, check the video I posted of Mexico in 2016. That is clearly how it was interpreted then.

Forgive my (pseudo) lawyer-like argument.

I thought "blocking" has been for ages one of the tools a driver has to his disposition. Blocking once, Ok. Blocking twice, is big NO. I didn't know Hamilton was special, and no one is allowed to block him at any time, unless you are asking for two demerit points and 5 sec penalty. In terms of safety, they probably forgot Verstappen escapades when he started, and got away with - all without a single boo...

 

[Hamberg]

Defence fine as long as you don’t defend the position by more than one change in direction, the attackers front wheels aren’t level (ahead?) of the defenders rear wheels or either driver doesn’t leave a car width or force four wheels off the track.
I presume Izumi you’ve only been watching F1 a couple of years from your anti Hamilton stance.

 

[Il_leone]

a further twist in this was LeClerc was not told that Vettel had a five second penalty so if Charles knew then how much faster would he have gone then?

 

[Hamberg]

a further twist in this was LeClerc was not told that Vettel had a five second penalty so if Charles knew then how much faster would he have gone then?

Sneaky. Not surprising though.

 

[Titch]

Where have you been Hamberg

 

[RasputinLives]

Hamberg is one of long time lurkers. She speaks when she needs too.

*Waves* hey Hamberg - hope you're good

 

[Izumi]

Defence fine as long as you don’t defend the position by more than one change in direction, the attackers front wheels aren’t level (ahead?) of the defenders rear wheels or either driver doesn’t leave a car width or force four wheels off the track.
I presume Izumi you’ve only been watching F1 a couple of years from your anti Hamilton stance.

Thanks for the lesson, but if I may add, this rule might not be applicable in two cases. One, when Vettel is involved, and when overtake is attempted in turns. We can argue about topography in the latest Canadian incident later on.

"Rule" you are reffering to may not be written exactly that way in the racing Bible, but it is supposed to be practiced as such. This, rather loose definition, was issued orally during driver's meeting by Whiting very long time ago. (Must be before my time).

A few years back Vettel test it when he had his car in advance parallel position next to Button, as they were entering a RH turn, yet Button drove Sebastian off the track, and then had audacity to radio his pit wall "to have Charlie look at it". Vettel got penalized for leaving track, rule or not. Similar incidents happened between Vettel and Alonso, and in other cases Alonso and Sainz, not to drag in here Verstappen, yet responses in each case by FiA were rather unsurprising.

In conclusion, I am left with impression that rules are there to be used at discretion by Race Stewards in support of popular racers, rather than enforcing what's written in a rule book. After all, it's a show (like WWE perhaps?) when it is convenient, and it is all business some other times.

 

[Angel]

That's it, Jacques Villeneuve has said Vettel did nothing dirty or bad. Case closed

 

[Dartman]

According to Wurz the drivers have bought it on themselves buy demanding every little incident should be looked at, so now what used to be ignored is now subject to referral back to previous incidents, these incidents may be similar but not the same but the decision is the same. Perhaps it is a generation thing, the current drivers have been bought up in a world where is is "never my fault" and demand a decision is made to prove it isn't, there was a time where Vettel's off would not allow him to return to the circuit due to lack of downforce not allowing him to even steer at that speed on the grass. Back in the 60's and 70's coming off the track at that speed could have resulted in a fiery death and to many it did so, todays drivers can leave the circuit without slowing and regain and impeding any following driver, the penalty replaces the fiery death, much less dramatic so best accept it

 

[Hamberg]

Izumi you’re welcome.

Why are you trying to compare racing scenarios to this one where Vettel left the track all by himself? The only point he defended his position (and according to the stewards he was in control of that final part) was when he saw he was about to lose the position.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with the application of the rule. I think as has been said before people don’t like rules that prevent hard racing (2008 anyone?). However, we didn’t get hard racing regardless. As before when we get tantalising close to what might be a boundary pushing battle, Vettel bottles it and denies us that chance. He either fucks up all by himself or takes someone with him. You want decent racing? Give someone else that red car.

Hi RasputinLives and Titch, yes just been lurking!

 

[Izumi]

Izumi you’re welcome.

Why are you trying to compare racing scenarios to this one where Vettel left the track all by himself? The only point he defended his position (and according to the stewards he was in control of that final part) was when he saw he was about to lose the position.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with the application of the rule. I think as has been said before people don’t like rules that prevent hard racing (2008 anyone?). However, we didn’t get hard racing regardless. As before when we get tantalising close to what might be a boundary pushing battle, Vettel bottles it and denies us that chance. He either ****s up all by himself or takes someone with him. You want decent racing? Give someone else that red car.

Hi RasputinLives and Titch, yes just been lurking!

It appears that you and I are interpreting racing, and life that defines F1, vastly differently. Simply put, I do not agree with your assessments. Cause & Effect analyses are available for practice by broader public. You should try it sometimes. You will feel refreshed and free from some false flags.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

I gather from the Autosport article, courtesy of Brogan, it was Vettel's decision to "drift to the right" that made them decide against Vettel. I have not seen anything on the stewards' reasoning beyond the Autosport article.

that Autosport article say that according to the stewards once Vettel had regained control he straightened his steering wheel. Given that the track goes straight what they are blaming him for seems to be the fact that he didn't move out of Hamilton's way.

furthermore I do not see any evidence in the letter of the regulation that implies that once you make a mistake and leave the track while you are (somehow) defending your position you then have to give up your position irrespetive of the fact that you have gained an advantage or not (in our case Vettel clearly didn't gain an advantage by going onto the grass, on the contrary he lost quite some time). As for re-joining in an unsafe manner IMHO that means that the driver has a choice, if he's a passenger that doesn't make much sense otherwise any time a driver misses the braking point or spins his car then he must be penalized (which I find utter madness)

What I'm saying is that if the above turns out to be the reason why Vettel was punished (the fact that so far we haven't seen anything "official" makes me believe that they are trying, ex post, to build up a case to support their decision) then it is a new and stricter interpretation of the rules. It is also an interpretation of the rules that goes against several similar precedents (nothing new in this, consistency is not F1's forte) and IMHO it goes against the spirit of the law as was correctly pointed out by none other than good old Mario Andretti (someone who knows a thing or two about racing) that said

"I think the function of the stewards is to penalize flagranty unsafe moves not honest mistakes as result of hard racing"

 

[Dartman]

The leaving of the track indicates you have no position(i.e you have left the race even on the warm up lap) therefore to regain the track you must not impede another driver, Hamilton had to brake, whether or not Vettel was in control really is immaterial, he left the track impeded another driver and didn't give way, penalty QED

 

[Izumi]

Looks like CAN race final (instead provisional) classification is on the books.