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.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

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.

As a lawyer I would like to say that what F1 DOESN'T need are lawyers (especially litigation lawyers), if someone doesn't believe me I suggest that he or she read "Bleak House" by Charles Dickens

 

[Izumi]

Why went Vettel off and could have he do anything differently not to loose rear? I think that's what Seb said was a reason for off excursion, correct? I am not sure that part of the event was explained properly.

 

[Izumi]

As a lawyer I would like to say that what F1 DOESN'T need are lawyers (especially litigation lawyers), if someone doesn't believe me I suggest that he or she read "Bleak House" by Charles Dickens

Surely there has to be someone somewhere who can write rules in simple English and without ambiguities and vague terms. "Rejoining track in safe manner" dosen't strike me as something written for posterity, and which people will cherish for centuries next to Plato, and some other books.

 

[RasputinLives]

The laws are so complex and open to interpretation because drivers and teams play the blame game. The FIA have buckled to all the complaing and pressure and written multiple rules that can be interpreted in multiple ways that they have no choice to implement then even if they damage the sport. Basically F1 is eating itself.

F1 is a sport. The FIA makes the rules and should enforce them no matter who is shouting at them about it. All teams and drivers are guilty of it and I'm afraid this is what you end up with.

 

[Izumi]

The laws are so complex and open to interpretation because drivers and teams play the blame game. The FIA have buckled to all the complaing and pressure and written multiple rules that can be interpreted in multiple ways that they have no choice to implement then even if they damage the sport. Basically F1 is eating itself.
F1 is a sport. The FIA makes the rules and should enforce them no matter who is shouting at them about it. All teams and drivers are guilty of it and I'm afraid this is what you end up with.

Agree, but FiA is a boss, we have to return back to normality. I think arguments arose in the past over badly (inadequately or ambiguously) written text. Returning back on a race track needs to be executed safely, that's self evident norm, and we do not have to waste ink on that. I am quite sure that was not first thing on Vettel's mind when he was sailing over grass as he went off.
1. Hamilton could use some guideline what to do in such situations.
2. We could all use clarity whether Vettel was suppose to slot behind Hamilton, or keep front position.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

The laws are so complex and open to interpretation because drivers and teams play the blame game. The FIA have buckled to all the complaing and pressure and written multiple rules that can be interpreted in multiple ways that they have no choice to implement then even if they damage the sport. Basically F1 is eating itself.

F1 is a sport. The FIA makes the rules and should enforce them no matter who is shouting at them about it. All teams and drivers are guilty of it and I'm afraid this is what you end up with.

 

[Ruslan]

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

Understand your point.

You might want to look at Jolyon Palmer's analysis:

 

[F1Brits_90]

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.

thats a another world champion in agreement. when 5? world champions + some very important world champions think they got wrong decision. the sports not the stewards got this wrong

 

[Izumi]

thats a another world champion in agreement. when 5? world champions + some very important world champions think they got wrong decision. the sports not the stewards got this wrong

What does that say about clarity of the rule book, when it is permiting such diversity of opinions among experts about this incident. Very regretable situation.

 

[olegg]

I don't tire of being surprised by the hysteria surrounding Vettel's mistake and the arguments justifying it.
Striking contradiction seems to be obvious things.
Here was written that Hamilton had to choose the inner radius from the very beginning
and then Vettel would escaped punishment.
But isn't it obvious that Hamilton chose the outer radius some time before Vettel exit from grass to the track?
I. e. Hamilton obviously chose a trajectory as far as possible from Vettel returning to the track.
If Hamilton had chosen the inner radius, he would most likely have crossed the way of Vettel returning to the track.
And since Vettel's point of exit from the grass was closer in the direction of Hamilton's movement
than the one in which he had to brake, avoiding a collision on the outer radius,
Hamilton would have had to brake earlier.
And not the fact that he would also have been able to escape the collision.
Well and further fantasies about the fact that Hamilton was able to rotate
with the outer radius on the inner in the moment when Vettel closed gate
can say only people have no idea what he's talking about...

 

[Il_leone]

Wow we are still talking about the race on Sunday.

As far as I am aware but correct me if I am wrong but no team apart Ferrari has overturned a decision on appeal

Time penalties however have no grounds for appeal or have people forgotten Chicane gate 2008 in their heads when the whole kangaroo court was a farce when the decision was reached. So quite Ferrari think they can overturn this time round a time penalty
is ludicrous

Remember the sport itself has been asking for ex f1 drivers to be part of the stewards so now they disagree and they are still crying about it

 

[F1Brits_90]

i think this whole topic as talked about. doesnt come down steward making the call its about sport recently trying to be too perfect. this is angering trend in football too, video assistant referee was brought in for the howler & embarrassing mistake. but instead we are having issues where you can have goals disallowed because they were offside by fractions. nobody can disagree it was the correct decision but the question going forward is this correct decision for the sport going forwards & does over regulation ruin the sport

as i saw someone tweet this example about Montoya, Schumacher & Raikkonen at magny cours. you could argue that Montoya couldve got a 5 sec penalty for intentionally blocking at the hairpin on lap 2

 

[Il_leone]

F1Brits_90 Disagree with someone saying Montoya should get a penalty for parking the car at the chicane there ... other drivers have done worse and he left enough space for Schumacher to turn

 

[F1Brits_90]

Disagree with someone saying Montoya should get a penalty for parking the car at the chicane there

you got to leave a cars width according to the rules

but lets just go back to them days when it was hard racing & nobody had a blame culture. let drivers sort it on track not in stewards room

 

[RasputinLives]

Interesting to look back at that era though and penalties. Unless I remembered incorrectly, Schumacher and Montoya collided under the safety car in the tunnel at Monaco and no one got jack.

 

[Ruslan]

i think this whole topic as talked about. doesnt come down steward making the call its about sport recently trying to be too perfect. this is angering trend in football too, video assistant referee was brought in for the howler & embarrassing mistake. but instead we are having issues where you can have goals disallowed because they were offside by fractions. nobody can disagree it was the correct decision but the question going forward is this correct decision for the sport going forwards & does over regulation ruin the sport

as i saw someone tweet this example about Montoya, Schumacher & Raikkonen at magny cours. you could argue that Montoya couldve got a 5 sec penalty for intentionally blocking at the hairpin on lap 2

I am just impressed to see a line of cars running nose to tail.

 

[Ruslan]

Interesting to look back at that era though and penalties. Unless I remembered incorrectly, Schumacher and Montoya collided under the safety car in the tunnel at Monaco and no one got jack.

This, or something related to it, might make for an interesting separate thread. There is a bigger issue here above and beyond whether Vettel or Hamilton should have won the race.

 

[Izumi]

Exactly. There is a greater issue in hand, however I am not hopeful it will be addressed any time soon.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Understand your point.

You might want to look at Jolyon Palmer's analysis:

that video doesn't work over here: what does Palmer say? I saw quotes from him and he was very upset by Vettel's comments over the radio to Riccardo Adami (as if that was the problem ) other than that I'm sure that you'll agree that in terms of which driver supported or criticised last Sunday's decision it looks pretty grim for Pirro and Co, they only have Nico Rosberg and Joylon Palmer on their side

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

just in case someone forgot