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

Il_leone

Champion Elect
When I see that incident the first thing that flashed in my head was the move was Schumacher -esque - Adelaide 94 springs to mind . We've heard different opinions from ex drivers . Its a difficult one to call because you can understand Vettel's position and then understand Hamilton's view point.

Montreal sits precedent for what is acceptable squeezing ... I am waiting for an incident between Hamilton and Verstappen because I don't think had any where Verstappen's defence was over the top against Hamilton's overtaking ability
 

olegg

Race Winner
I knew it... what is particularly talented writers will say that Hamilton's fault that Vettel was punished...
In their expert opinion it turns out Hamilton was obliged to foresee Vettel's mistake
and the fact that he would need to return dangerously on the road blocking the apex.....
 

sobriety

Pole Sitter
From what Hamilton said that's exactly what he did, like a footballer inviting the foul to win a penalty, and it worked. He did also say that if the rule didn't exist he'd have gone for the gap, even though it was closing.
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
Any driver in Hamilton's position would have done the same protesting about being forced into the wall. Question is if the roles were reversed would Hamilton be slapped with a 5 second penalty or not?

I am just seeing shades of Senna in Hamilton and Prost in Vettel where Hamilton seems to get the better of Vettel in just about every duel
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
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!!! :whistle:

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.
So they should not have penalized Verstappen in Mexico in 2016 nor penalized Vettel in Canada in 2019?
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
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?
Well, I looked at it, an I am not sure it is really possible. Look at seconds :29 - :31 on the video:


There appears to be no space on Vettel's left at :30.

Anyhow, we shall see how the appeal goes, but I suspect it is not going to go in Vettel's favor.
 
Last edited:

Izumi

Points Scorer
In Mexico it was self evident that Verstappen gained positional advantage on the track, and had he back off immediately and let Vettel and probably Ricciardo through, there was no need to punish him. It was his error. Point is, he didn't do it and race results were affected. His penalty was appropriate measure.

In Canada Vettel didn't gained a position. I think that was self evident, and that's the distinction. Hamilton could go to the left of Vettel, but at those speeds, as Hakkinen points out, it is hard however to blame him. One could say that Hamilton, as experienced as he is, could have known "where the puck going to be", per hockey analogy, or where Vettel is going to end up, and lift or use brakes.
Point is, he did not do that, at least not initially, therefore this was near miss racing accident, and nothing more. No need for penalty to anyone, and let hard racing for what it was, and we want to see.
 
Last edited:
So they should not have penalized Verstappen in Mexico in 2016 nor penalized Vettel in Canada in 2019?
IMHO neither of them deserved to be punished, unless the very same mistake was repeated every time their challenger was getting close to them (in that case you could argue that the mistake was instrumental in defending their position and therefore gaining an advantage)

Since we are talking precedents and some people here seem to interpret this discussion as a clash of different factions each trying to defend his driver let me say that the most unreasonable of all the penalties that was discussed in this thread looks to me to be the one handed out to Hamilton at Spa in 2008.
 
Last edited:
Well, I looked at it, an I am not sure it is really possible. Look at seconds :29 - :31 on the video:

There appears to be no space on Vettel's left at :30.

Anyhow, we shall see how the appeal goes, but I suspect it is not going to go in Vettel's favor.
the video is blocked over here. In terms of space to pass Vettel on the inside he had plenty, he would have needed to brake before closing the chicane though, that is the problem, he would have had to change completely his line in a matter of a couple of tenths of a second.

In terms of enough room on the outside Hamilton clearly didn't have any room within the white lines (so "technically" he didn't have any), whether he had enough room over the kerb I don't know, I'd say that he didn't have enough but then I've seen him say that if the rule didn't exist he would have tried to squeeze through and that to me implies that he thought that one way or the other he would have found some room (ie there would have been contact with Vettel).

whether Hamilton had room or not is totally immaterial for me, Vettel got to the point of the track as a result of a bona fide mistake, IMHO the investigation should close there, if it's a bona fide mistake you shouldn't be punished. I know that many disagree but I think that many haven't thought about what would happen if such a rule was to be applied consistently to any bona fide mistake
 
Last edited:

Dartman

Points Scorer
The penalty was fair, the drivers themselves have bought this about by consistently shouting "did Charlie see that" though it wasn't Charlie in this case the trend has been set, the drivers can't or won't drive in a reasonable manner because in their ultra safe carbon fibre boxes they are bullet proof and push beyond the acceptable limit. The excuse racing incident was for incidents where neither party was at fault or both were, however in the case of both were, it is not normal to punish both but it happened, Vettel pushed his luck and it was found wanting.Tough s:censored:tLOL
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
IMHO neither of them deserved to be punished...
Can you elaborate on this, please? I am puzzled, since rule practiced for ages dictates, if you cut through turn, and gain a position, you need to correct that. Are you suggesting in Mexico that was not a case what Vesrtappen has done..?
 
Last edited:

Chasz

Points Scorer
Well, I looked at it, an I am not sure it is really possible. Look at seconds :29 - :31 on the video:


There appears to be no space on Vettel's left at :30.

Anyhow, we shall see how the appeal goes, but I suspect it is not going to go in Vettel's favor.
This is the precise point I made a number of posts ago. I can't see how people are saying that Hamilton could've passed on the left!
 
Can you elaborate on this, please? I am puzzled, since rule practiced for ages dictates, if you cut through turn, and gain a position, you need to correct that. Are you suggesting in Mexico that was not a case what Vesrtappen has done..?
we've seen so many different videeos that I might get confused but if I remember correctly Max was in front, missed the chicane and got out in front of Vettel. I see no problem in that. Obviously if the event that I am referring to is different from what you are referring to it's a different matter, I can't check videos now, I'm at work. But my position on such matters is that if you're ahead of another driver and you miss a chicane you should keep your position. If you're in a dice, both drivers brake hard, one misses a chicane and by doing that either passes the other or prevents the other from passing him (ie gains an obvious advantage in a dice) then he should give his position. I don't agree that if by any chance you make a mistake then you should be punished
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
I remember Ferrari threatening to protest Vettel's fine...
And where is this protest?
Not quite a protest, more a "we are thinking about protesting" - Ferrari may use 'right of review' to challenge Vettel penalty

Ferrari really need to let this go and concentrate on making their car go faster.

In other news, did you see the silly LED lights McLaren have installed around their workstations in the garage which "show the track condition" i.e green, yellow or red. Have they nothing better to do at the MTC?
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
we've seen so many different videeos that I might get confused but if I remember correctly Max was in front, missed the chicane and got out in front of Vettel. I see no problem in that. Obviously if the event that I am referring to is different from what you are referring to it's a different matter, I can't check videos now, I'm at work. But my position on such matters is that if you're ahead of another driver and you miss a chicane you should keep your position. If you're in a dice, both drivers brake hard, one misses a chicane and by doing that either passes the other or prevents the other from passing him (ie gains an obvious advantage in a dice) then he should give his position. I don't agree that if by any chance you make a mistake then you should be punished
I think you are correct. Mine was erroneous recollection. Vettel was about to overtake (red car was significantly faster over RBR) when Verstappen went off, and under pressure took shortcut (I think it was on lap 68/71). You see, My age is showing up. What followed was also circus. Verstappen after that zig - zag in the front of Seb - I am not sure how many times, but more than once - etc. Greatest beneficiary of that messy race at the end was Ricciardo.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom