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]

As expected:
Vettel's last Canada hope gone as Ferrari ditch appeal

 

[olegg]

https://www.planetf1.com/f1-races/canadian-grand-prix/ferrari-will-not-appeal-canadian-gp-penalty/

So it turns out, maybe before making loud statements about the injustice of someone's decisions,
and then do nothing to defend their position, it makes sense to think?
Otherwise it is a loss of face...

 

[Ruslan]

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)

Yea, I kind of think you have decide that either both cases are illegal or both should be allowed.

The real question is should drivers be able to cut the corner to maintain their position. Right now....I gather the ruling for some time from FIA is that they should not under any circumstances.

 

[Ruslan]

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.

What I was looking at an overhead view of the two cars. At around :29 Hamilton is at the apex of the corner and Vettel is on the curbing about the re-enter the track. At :30 Vettel in on track and Hamilton's front wheels are now beside Vettel's rear wheels on its right. Only at that point is there any room to Vettel's left. I have never driven one of these beasts....but I don't see how Hamilton could of passed on Vettel's left. It seems pretty clear from an overhead view.

 

[Ruslan]

https://www.planetf1.com/f1-races/canadian-grand-prix/ferrari-will-not-appeal-canadian-gp-penalty/

In this article there is an interesting sentence at the end: F1: Ferrari will not appeal Sebastian Vettel’s penalty from Canadian GP despite driver’s fury

To quote:

"The team's decision may have been made in light of new video evidence that emerged on Sunday, which appeared to show Vettel making a second steering input to block Hamilton once he had regained control of his Ferrari after coming off the grass, back on to the track."

 

[Angel]

Yes I just read that the appeal has been dropped. Oh well, that's that then.

 

[Ruslan]

Yes I just read that the appeal has been dropped. Oh well, that's that then.

Well, they would have lost on the appeal. Could have even picked up a second or third penalty.

 

[Angel]

Well, they would have lost on the appeal. Could have even picked up a second or third penalty.

True so it's probably better they didn't go ahead with it.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

What I was looking at an overhead view of the two cars. At around :29 Hamilton is at the apex of the corner and Vettel is on the curbing about the re-enter the track. At :30 Vettel in on track and Hamilton's front wheels are now beside Vettel's rear wheels on its right. Only at that point is there any room to Vettel's left. I have never driven one of these beasts....but I don't see how Hamilton could of passed on Vettel's left. It seems pretty clear from an overhead view.

Hamilton should have slowed down before getting to the zpex of the second part of the chicane, whether it could be done or not IMHO there is no doubt that it was easily achievable. Had I been in Hamilton's position I would have probably donw what he did, my point was to highlight the fact that if we accept that despite the fact that any driver apart from Rosberg and Palmer said that Vettel did what any driver would have done Vettel was supposed to do something different, the by the very same token we should expect Hamilton to have done something different. If we measure Hamilton by the standard "what another driver would have done" we should apply the same principle to Vettel.

 

[Izumi]

As expected:
Vettel's last Canada hope gone as Ferrari ditch appeal

Is it really not over yet?
Ferrari to seek review of Vettel penalty

 

[Hamberg]

Hamilton should have slowed down before getting to the zpex of the second part of the chicane

Why should Hamilton slow down to allow a driver that’s gone off the track to re enter safely?

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Why should Hamilton slow down to allow a driver that’s gone off the track to re enter safely?

to overttake him on the inside, it's that simple

 

[Izumi]

Teams should hire good lawyers and challenge the rules. People talking about safely rejoining track, yet what a rubbish instruction that is IMO. What does that even mean - safely rejoining? Driver is not parking on sidelines, or exiting from pits so he can choose when he re-enters track. A driver in Vettel's situation in the last race becomes a passenger in his car, sliding on grass in high speed, and he can consider himself lucky to rejoin the track of fixed trajectory at all without spin, surviving the off with minimal setback. I've never driven a racing car, but I've driven a lot on icy roads, and I know pretty much what can happen when one has his car in assymetrical traction. All this nonsense what driver should or could have done coming off the grass seems rather strange. It's time to get a new, more sensible book of rules.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Why should Hamilton slow down to allow a driver that’s gone off the track to re enter safely?

Jacques Villeneuve: “It’s not a question of letting them race, because ‘let them race’ means people do dirty, stupid stuff. You should never do anything intentionally that forces another driver to back off or put him in danger, that’s one thing. But you go across a chicane, you get back on the gas as hard as you can, even if it might be risking other drivers, because the guys behind know ‘this guy is in the grass, he’ll probably get sideways, the chances are I’ll be squished… OK, I’ll go for the inside.’ You know it. Lewis did the right thing, he managed to impose a penalty on Vettel. He’s very good at that!”

Max Chilton: Tough result for F1. I can see it both ways. FIA are following the rule book that you can’t rejoin by going straight to the racing line but poor choice for the sport. All drivers know Vettel could have not gone back to power and joined safely on the inside.”

Helmut Marko: “Sebastian did nothing wrong He had his hands full trying to keep the car on track, Hamilton could have passed on the inside or just brake – he also had a duty to prevent an accident but he was aware he could get an advantage, therefore, he also complained over the radio. The penalty for Sebastian is unfair and leaves a bad aftertaste. The rules need to be changed urgently. Unlike in football, the race stewards have plenty of time to weigh up a situation in a race, also to take into account previous cases like this. This is how you break the sport, the fans, especially the young ones, want to see tough fights between the best drivers in the world, like the duels between Gilles Villeneuve and Réné Arnoux in 1979 in Dijon. Those are what made the sport what it does.”

If we want to ask the nearly impossible to Vettel, it's fair to ask the same to Hamitlon. My post was just to show that someone has a very one sided view of such matters.

I think that Vettel did what any other driver would have done in such a situation, and by the same token I think that Hamilton did what any other driver would have done. Some are arguing that Vettel could have done otherwise, suggesting that Hamilton could have passed him on the inside is applying the same logic to Hamilton's actions. Only it looks as if asking the nearly impossible is fair if that applies to a certain driver, not very fair if it applies to some other driver.

 

[RasputinLives]

Teams should hire good lawyers and challenge the rules.

The very last thing this sport needs is more eager legal beavers feathering their own nests and tying everyone up with loopholes, paperwork and challenges. The second to last thing we need is more power for the teams. In case anyone hasn't been paying attention it's the constant complaining and trying to get other drivers penalised which has led to the FIA having to ruin races with regulations like this in the first place.

Death by bureaucracy.

 

[Izumi]

The very last thing this sport needs is more eager legal beavers feathering their own nests and tying everyone up with loopholes, paperwork and challenges. The second to last thing we need is more power for the teams. In case anyone hasn't been paying attention it's the constant complaining and trying to get other drivers penalised which has led to the FIA having to ruin races with regulations like this in the first place.

Death by bureaucracy.

I am not trying to save world, or find cure for mentally challenged people. All what I wanted was for someone to explain, what "safe rejoining" track meant in context of last race. Lawyers sometimes are quite smart, and could perhaps move FiA to begin drafting sensible regulations, because this nonsense is going on for far too long. Max Chilton certainly understands that, some fans in here do not.

 

[Hamberg]

Okay understood Publius Cornelius Scipio.

Taking the individuals out of it...
If driver A has an unforced error and causes driver B (who has done nothing wrong) to lose momentum either by slowing/braking or having to take a non racing line to allow driver A to recover correctly, that means driver A (caused it) has been advantaged/returns to status quo and driver B has been disadvantaged.

Regardless of whether he could have avoided it or not, why should driver A get away with to Driver Bs detriment? Why does driver B have any responsibility?

It’s almost like people are ignoring the fact Vettel lost control and left the track. He could have done something about it - not left the track in the first place.

The argument it’s to do with who was involved is ridiculous. Peoples views on the right or wrong might be but not the stewards decision.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Okay understood Publius Cornelius Scipio.

Taking the individuals out of it...
If driver A has an unforced error and causes driver B (who has done nothing wrong) to lose momentum either by slowing/braking or having to take a non racing line to allow driver A to recover correctly, that means driver A (caused it) has been advantaged/returns to status quo and driver B has been disadvantaged.

Regardless of whether he could have avoided it or not, why should driver A get away with to Driver Bs detriment? Why does driver B have any responsibility?

It’s almost like people are ignoring the fact Vettel lost control and left the track. He could have done something about it - not left the track in the first place.

The argument it’s to do with who was involved is ridiculous. Peoples views on the right or wrong might be but not the stewards decision.

thanks for the very interesting reply Hamberg

What you say is certainly true however IMHO we should consider if the mistake was bona fide or not and if it is something that could have happened to anyone under those circumstances. Obviously had driver A been defending under braking from driver B my position would be very different, if driver had cut a chicane while defending the he would have gained an undue advantage. In case of a bona fide mistake IMHO it gets a little bit more difficult in the sense that sure driver A made a mistake but it is also true that driver B could have reacted to that mistake. When you say that driver A's mistake is unfairly harming driver B you are certainly right, my reasoning (and obviously it's just my personal take and we are all here to discuss) is that s**t happens and it's not always right to blame someone else. Just a small example: this morning I nearly lost my train because on my way to the station a van had broken down and it was slowing down traffic: should the van driver get a ticket for holding up traffic? probably not. Should he get a ticket if his van broke down because he hadn't serviced his van properly and as a consequence held up traffic (and nearly cost me a very important meeting)? IMHO possibly yes. As I said in life s**t happens, overregulating is something that I find very dangerous. On that basis given that in our little exmple driver A proably didn't mean to cause any harm to driver B I'd say that no one should be penalized, and I say so because I don't believe that a bona fide mistake should get you in trouble (that is in respect of all our daily lives, not just in respect of last Sunday's race)

 

[Ruslan]

If we want to ask the nearly impossible to Vettel....

Well, the stewards (including Pirro) felt he had control of the car. If they are correct, then they are not asking for the nearly impossible.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Well, the stewards (including Pirro) felt he had control of the car. If they are correct, then they are not asking for the nearly impossible.

I think that it's not only whether if he had control of the car, but if he had time to look around him (according to Alex Wurz he didn't) and react, it's the same situation as Hamilton, in theory they could both have done something different, in practice any driver will tell you that what they both did was what any driver would have done