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]

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

Contentious issue is in claim by stewards, that upon Vettel's rejoining race Hamilton was right to be where he was, and Vettel was not. There is no physical evidence that Vettel could do as assumed by stewards, and they placed their subjective assessment against driver, and now some people disagree; I am one of those. Vettel was travelling on certain trajectory, worrying about keeping car out of spin. I am not sure how clear he was where Hamilton was, or even if he could do something else.

 

[Hamberg]

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.

RasputinLives ^^^^ why i don’t bother posting much anymore.

 

[Ruslan]

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"

Well, with the appeal this will get reviewed once again. We shall see what they say.

But, in some respects, Andretti's comment does address the crux of the problem here...."flagrantly unsafe moves" vice "hard racing." I am not sure how you write that difference into a regulation or "properly" educate the stewards as to which is which.

Again, going back to Verstappen and Vettel in Mexico in 2016 (which is an example for some reason everyone is ignoring even though I posted the video), Verstappen exits the track in the lead and returns in the safe manner back in front of Vettel, yet Vettel is on the radio saying "He has to give it up" and indeed Verstappen was penalized five seconds after the race. Now....suddenly a similar incident, with added bonus that is almost resulted in a collision, is suddenly a huge failure by the stewards. I do not understand the difference.

 

[FB]

I do not understand the difference.

Because someone's favourite driver was punished, perchance?

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Well, with the appeal this will get reviewed once again. We shall see what they say.

But, in some respects, Andretti's comment does address the crux of the problem here...."flagrantly unsafe moves" vice "hard racing." I am not sure how you write that difference into a regulation or "properly" educate the stewards as to which is which.

Again, going back to Verstappen and Vettel in Mexico in 2016 (which is an example for some reason everyone is ignoring even though I posted the video), Verstappen exits the track in the lead and returns in the safe manner back in front of Vettel, yet Vettel is on the radio saying "He has to give it up" and indeed Verstappen was penalized five seconds after the race. Now....suddenly a similar incident, with added bonus that is almost resulted in a collision, is suddenly a huge failure by the stewards. I do not understand the difference.

I don't agree with Vertsppen's penalty in Mexico 2016 but I see a difference with what happened last Sunday, in the sense that Verstappen did gain an advantage (Vettel was much closer to him than Hamilton was to Vettel last Sunday), it's a bit of a stretch IMHO but there you go. Another decision on such matters that I totally disagree with is the penalty inflicted on Hamilton at Spa in 2008 (or was it 2009?). But that is not the point, there are opposite decisions on similar matters like Monaco 2016, IMHO Monaco 2016 is much closer to last Sunday that Mexico 2016 or Spa 2008.

The point is that we got to the stage were a driver has to be penalized for making a mistake irrespective of whether he gained an advantage or not, that is something that I can't quite consider reasonable.

The issue with the stwards will have to be addressed sooner or later because you need consistency in these matters

 

[Izumi]

I don't agree with Vertsppen's penalty in Mexico 2016 but I see a difference with what happened last Sunday, in the sense that Verstappen did gain an advantage (Vettel was much closer to him than Hamilton was to Vettel last Sunday), it's a bit of a stretch IMHO but there you go. Another decision on such matters that I totally disagree with is the penalty inflicted on Hamilton at Spa in 2008 (or was it 2009?). But that is not the point, there are opposite decisions on similar matters like Monaco 2016, IMHO Monaco 2016 is much closer to last Sunday that Mexico 2016 or Spa 2008.

The point is that we got to the stage were a driver has to be penalized for making a mistake irrespective of whether he gained an advantage or not, that is something that I can't quite consider reasonable.The issue with the stwards will have to be addressed sooner or later because you need consistency in these matters

I doubt they will do that. Brawn was already commenting on the latest incident, and sided with stewards. F1 is over-regulated, and as someone said, this is clear cut example how you ultimately kill the series.

Come to think of it, I used to like Ross, but that was long time ago.

 

[sobriety]

Except that in Monaco '16 the stewards adjudged that there was a cars width between Hamilton and the armco, just Danny Ric didn't have the minerals to go for it There clearly wasn't that space at Montreal on Sunday, and the stewards adjudged that Vettel made sure that space wasn't there on purpose, so he got punished.

 

[Ruslan]

Because someone's favourite driver was punished, perchance?

Publius Cornelius Scipio I believe favors Hamilton over Vettel....so that is really not relevant for this particular thread of discussion.

 

[Ruslan]

The issue with the stewards will have to be addressed sooner or later because you need consistency in these matters

Well, I think they were actually being "consistent" with this particular decision.....whether or not it was the right decision.

 

[Izumi]

Well, I think they were actually being "consistent" with this particular decision.....whether or not it was the right decision.

Really? In Mexico Verstappen once he cut across the grass and gained advantage over Vettel, he was supposed to immediately move over, and let Vettel back ahead of him. Such were general expectations, yet stewards instead let it be, to Vettel's detriment.

Vettel got out of rhythm, slowed down, and ultimately this led into another alleged incident with Ricciardo.

Steward's inconsistency totally demolished Vettel's race. Until today I hear Vettel screaming on the radio, he (Verstappen) has to give me that place back, as timing was of essence, yet Whiting let this one pass and dealt with it only too late for Vettel. I am sorry, but I do not detect any consistency you are suggesting that is there.

 

[RasputinLives]

Izumi if you're closing your eyes and hearing Sebastian Vettel scream in your ears then you may need to seek advice.

 

[Izumi]

Izumi if you're closing your eyes and hearing Sebastian Vettel scream in your ears then you may need to seek advice.

Radio com from that Mexico race was made public, mainly due to some salty language Seb used when Whiting's name came up. I thought you would have known about that. No magic carpet or voodoo dolls are involved, I assure you. Point was, there were expectations that rules of the race will be enforced in timely manner. Stewards of the race and Whiting failed - I do not want to go as far as claim they manipulated race results, despite it felt like it for me.

 

[Izumi]

Hakkinen: Incidents like Vettel's need to be investigated thoroughly before penalties

Hakkinen:

“Getting onto the clean line is the automatic reaction. Finding the clean line and keeping the driver behind – it’s 50/50.At the angle Sebastian was at, he couldn’t see the car behind. So when you rejoin the circuit, you’re thinking “How far was the guy behind me, how long would it take for him to get here?” and calculating to make sure you don’t crash into him. The driver behind you can see you, has a brake pedal and has the whole racetrack to be used and to choose his line. The angle Sebastian went off, Lewis doesn’t have choices of line, only that he can really slow down.”

Precisely, as stated now several times before, this subjective second guessing of driver's intent by bunch of men at the distance must be banned.

 

[Ruslan]

Really? In Mexico Verstappen once he cut across the grass and gained advantage over Vettel, he was supposed to immediately move over, and let Vettel back ahead of him. Such were general expectations, yet stewards instead let it be, to Vettel's detriment.

Well, Vestappen was given a five second penalty after the race....which is why I say it is a precedence for the ruling made at Canada.

I assume you then accept the argument that Vettel should have immediately moved over and let Hamilton ahead of him at Canada.

 

[Titch]

In answer to nothing, just an observation, but it occurs to me that much gets lost in translation. Especially the Great British dry sense of humour.

 

[Izumi]

Well, Vestappen was given a five second penalty after the race....which is why I say it is a precedence for the ruling made at Canada.

I assume you then accept the argument that Vettel should have immediately moved over and let Hamilton ahead of him at Canada.

No and No.

1. In Mexico it was obvious, transparent and undisputed violation of rules by Vesrtappen, which was attended (deliberately?) in untimely manner, when race for Vettel was consequently adversely affected by that delay, as Verstappen was backing him into DR. Totally disgraceful act by FiA.
2. In Canada, I find myself in agreement with Hakkinen (Publius, and many others) how to interpret this latest incident.

At this point I think we beat that issue to death. I am still short on answer whether Ferrari has decided to proceed with appeal.

 

[RasputinLives]

Radio com from that Mexico race was made public, mainly due to some salty language Seb used when Whiting's name came up. I thought you would have known about that. No magic carpet or voodoo dolls are involved, I assure you. Point was, there were expectations that rules of the race will be enforced in timely manner. Stewards of the race and Whiting failed - I do not want to go as far as claim they manipulated race results, despite it felt like it for me.

Yeah see Titch's point. Just trying to defuse anger with humour.

 

[Izumi]

Hamilton:

Lewis Hamilton: “I watched the slow motion, it’s obviously very tight, what I can say is that if I was a leader and I made a mistake and went off, I probably would have done the same thing. It’s happening so fast, and you’re just trying to keep the position, and when I say I would have done the same thing, I would have tried to squeeze it too. In the end, that’s what happened.”

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Well, I think they were actually being "consistent" with this particular decision.....whether or not it was the right decision.

I think that they were consistent in consistently messing with the races and consistently taking the wrong decisions without arguing their case properly, I mean it's Wednesday and still no written reasoning for the penalty, this is getting even worse than the Italian judiciary!!!

The problem is that there is a whole lot of similar cases that have been decided in an opposite way, ok I hear you guys saying that the FIA is governed by French law and under French law there is no such thing as a binding precedent but this is taking it a bit too far. And I disagree with this very broad interpetation of art. 27.3 which IMHO goes against the spirit of the law.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

I assume you then accept the argument that Vettel should have immediately moved over and let Hamilton ahead of him at Canada.

You know that I love discussing with you so let me turn the question to you: why didn't Hamilton pass Vettel on the inside? He had plenty of space to do so, Vettel had left him enough room to sail past him to his left hand side so why should Vettel be punished because Hamilton didn't realise that he had a golden chance of passing on the inside?