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]

Those were times...but they aren't returning back. We cannot turn clock back, however it would be nice if they at least tried. By the end of October we will know what FiA has cooked for us. BTW that was then the face of F1, which hook me up for life with this sport. Not every race however was that exciting as French GP posted by Publius. Drivers involved, and equipment they used had a lot to do with memories they created for us.

 

[F1Brits_90]

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.

yes that what i was realising. when i took a step back. its not was the decision right by the rules. more are rules right by the sport

 

[F1Brits_90]

also on separate point how nice that we could have this thread without it descending in arguments because I know obn 606 or some others this thread wouldve been locked a long time ago

 

[Bill Boddy]

.... it looks pretty grim for Pirro and Co, they only have Nico Rosberg and Joylon Palmer on their side

I was watching the race with Austrian TV and listening on BBC Radio 5 Live; Palmer was the assistant commentator. When asked for his view on the incident immediately after it happened he said that he would have done what Vettel did by coming back on then and "going for it, if you don't you have lost the race".

 

[RasputinLives]

Palmer column tends to be written in order to get the most clicks and shares and I always doubt it's his actual opinion.

Having said that the majority of F1 journalist are getting paid by one team or another so I imagine they write what they get told. The dis-information sown by both Ferrari and Merc in the media (gamesmanship if you prefer) is so flaming obvious now I don't know how anyone can't question it.

E.G.

Wolff at begining of the season "Ferrari are the fastest car and we might even be behind Red Bull"

Ferrari: "We don't expect any improvement in Canada and expect to be well off the pace"

They're all liars but, due to to the fact they are where the presses money comes from, they are never called out on it.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

I was watching the race with Austrian TV and listening on BBC Radio 5 Live; Palmer was the assistant commentator. When asked for his view on the incident immediately after it happened he said that he would have done what Vettel did by coming back on then and "going for it, if you don't you have lost the race".

maybe he had a change of heart

 

[Izumi]

One wonders whether this was final blow to Vettel psyche in his drive for WDC this year, or the team get him moving again. He is down at the moment, at least that's impression I have of him since last race.

 

[Ruslan]

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

Well, it goes on for 15 minutes. I did not watch the whole thing. In the first three minutes he said:

:21: Agrees with the stewards
:30 Two factors 1) crowding off the circuit, 2) unsafe rejoining
:55 After Vettel's slide (which he catches), there is still space on the right hand side.
1:58: He catches the slide and then starts turning left.
2:00 Immediately after, he straightens up
2:04 He sees Hamilton in his right mirror
2:16 He carries on crowding Hamilton off the road
2:33 Vettel is at 25% throttle as he crosses the grass
2:45 As he comes back on the track he is on 50% throttle
3:04 He did not need to be on 50% throttle to save the car, he could have been on less.
3:10 And therefore Hamilton would have had more space on the outside.

3:40 He would have done the same as Vettel


He then reviews a number of other recent similar incidents.

 

[Bill Boddy]

Ruslan you keep on saying"crowding off" an alternative is "defending his position". I have reviewed my recording and what I see is that Hamilton starts to get past Vettel and gets to the point where the rear of his left rear wheel is just about level with the front of Vettel's right rear tyre, despite it being said that Hamilton was up to the middle of Vettel's car.

Personally I do not think that Hamilton ever got to the position where I would say that he was in an overtaking position.

I now expect to be contradicted but that's life.

 

[Ruslan]

Ruslan you keep on saying"crowding off" an alternative is "defending his position". I have reviewed my recording and what I see is that Hamilton starts to get past Vettel and gets to the point where the rear of his left rear wheel is just about level with the front of Vettel's right rear tyre, despite it being said that Hamilton was up to the middle of Vettel's car.

Personally I do not think that Hamilton ever got to the position where I would say that he was in an overtaking position.

I now expect to be contradicted but that's life.

I am just noting in the last post what Joylon Palmer is saying for Publius Cornelius Scipio as he could not get the youtube video. Palmer used the term "crowding off."

My focus has been on article 27.3 which reads (bold numbers are my additions): "Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this may only be done when it is 1) safe to do so and 2) without gaining any lasting advantage...." I have not really discussed the lack of space, although Palmer does and this was one of the earliest comments made by Damon Hill.

Hamilton's front tire was level with Vettel's rear (I don't know who says he was up the middle....it wasn't I). The issue here is not whether it is an overtaking position or not, but that there is simply no more space left for Hamilton as Vettel's car was moving over to take it. Kind of a law of physics issue. But, what I found interesting in Palmer's video is 1) he noted that Vettel had control of the car, 2) he noted what Vettel could see and was observing Hamilton in his right mirror (both of these points reinforce the stewards argument) and 3) he notes the power applied.

Keep in mind that my argument is that the stewards made a reasonable decision based upon the rules even though it may not have been call that I would have made if I had been steward.

 

[F1Brits_90]

F1 can't just move on from Vettel penalty - Abiteboul

 

[Bill Boddy]

.... The issue here is not whether it is an overtaking position or not, but that there is simply no more space left for Hamilton as Vettel's car was moving over to take it.....

It would be interesting to find out how many F1 drivers have never shut the door this way on a regular basis without penalty. I feel that the number will be low or non-existent.

 

[Ruslan]

It would be interesting to find out how many F1 drivers have never shut the door this way on a regular basis without penalty. I feel that the number will be low or non-existent.

Well, I am sure most have in their career on more than one occasion. Sometimes they get penalized for it, sometimes they don't. The real issue is that FIA (Jean Todt and company) need to decide what makes up a penalty and what does not. Now, there may be some consistency in the stewarding of that. Palmer in his video actually goes through a number of past examples. So, I suspect the stewards in Canada were rather logically reviewing the case based upon the rules, current guidance and recent precedence and their decision was in line with that. Whether this is what the majority support or want is another subject, but I do think it was in line with recent past decisions.

I did throw out the suggestion in one of my (many) posts that maybe someone should propose how the rules should read that would define these situations. The actual rule is a simple one sentence rule. When the stewards sit down to evaluate a case, they need to do it based upon some guidance and some standards. In some respects, their hands are tied. I think only Publius Cornelius Scipio responded and his response was that the rule should stay the same. But, that does not really answer the question of how the rules should be interpreted because he argues that Vettel did not have control of his car, whereas the stewards argue that he did at the point of infraction (and I tend to agree with that later interpretation). How one interprets this "fact" does completely temper the discussion.

But, I am guessing from your post that you feel the block was fine even if it was deliberate. In that case, then what should be the rules going forward (when can you do a legal block and when can you not)? There does need to be a good sense of what the rules are and how are they going to interpreted. I have yet to see put forward a clear proposed set of guidance for these types of situations.

The other sport I follow is hockey, primarily because my son plays it. In hockey, the players talk about "justified" or "good" penalties. Basically, if the opposing attacker has broken away and the defender is lagging behind, they deliberately do whatever they can to disrupt the attacker, even if it is illegal (like trip the guy). Even if they are penalized (and sometimes they are not), it was worth doing because it stopped a goal. One wonders if the same argument applies here, whereas Vettel had to block Hamilton regardless of whether it was legal or not. Otherwise he was going to lose the race. Now, Vettel does not appear to see it that way (as he clearly believes he did not do anything wrong)....but this may be a situation where Vettel pushed "the rules" to the limit, and sometimes you get called on this and sometimes you don't. This time he got called.

Sorry for the long answer...but this is actually a pretty interesting subject once you get away from all the ranting and raving about it.

 

[Izumi]

This is how modern engineer thinks; pitty he seems to stand alone, and that's part of the problem.

The decision to fine the German caused huge controversy among fans, F1 figures, and former drivers, catalysing a debate about rule changes to allow the drivers more freedom.

Abiteboul thinks it is important that the situation isn’t brushed under the carpet, like many other issues.

"Each time there is an incident like that [with Vettel], then we talk, and we talk and we move on to something else," he told Motorsport.com.

"That's one of the problems of Formula 1, that there is no proper - not consistency in the application of the decision - but consistency [in what is done].

"If we think that there is a problem, let's make sure that we fix the problem before we forget about the problem. And it's a little bit the same on the rules.

Abiteboul gets my thumbs up.

 

[Jimbob]

This incident will - if it hasn't already - go down in the annals of F1 history and will be referred to often. Mark it well!

 

[Izumi]

Problem is, should the rule stay the same, that instruction "driver must rejoin in safe manner" is too vague, and open to subjective interpretation. As I've state earlier, rule should be rephrased, and limited in focus on merely restating when a driver can keep his position once he rejoined race, and when he has to back off, and slot behind. That's all.

Do not write anything about "safe returns" aspect of which would have to be evaluated by stewards. Drivers do not have death wish, and they do know what they can or cannot manage once they rejoin without motherly and redundant words to behave.

 

[Jimbob]

Problem is, should the rule stay the same, that instruction "driver must rejoin in safe manner" is too vague, and open to subjective interpretation. As I've state earlier, rule should be rephrased, and limited in focus on merely restating when a driver can keep his position once he rejoined race, and when he has to back off, and slot behind. That's all.

Do not write anything about "safe returns" aspect of which would have to be evaluated by stewards. Drivers do not have death wish, and they do know what they can or cannot manage once they rejoin without motherly and redundant words to behave.

I'm inclined to disagree. Rules should be generally vague with interpretations down to the stewards, as in this case. What we think doesn't really matter and shouldn't matter either. After all, what would we have to chat about otherwise?

 

[Ruslan]

Problem is, should the rule stay the same, that instruction "driver must rejoin in safe manner" is too vague, and open to subjective interpretation. As I've state earlier, rule should be rephrased, and limited in focus on merely restating when a driver can keep his position once he rejoined race, and when he has to back off, and slot behind. That's all.

Do not write anything about "safe returns" aspect of which would have to be evaluated by stewards. Drivers do not have death wish, and they do know what they can or cannot manage once they rejoin without motherly and redundant words to behave.

So how should the rules be re-written or rephrased?

 

[Ruslan]

What we think doesn't really matter and shouldn't matter either.

Actually what we think does matter. Formula one would cease to exist if there are no fans. Even a small decline in TV viewership causes the management to quiver (especially as they are a for-profit organization). So the danger is.....if the sport starts losing credibility....then it will start losing its established customer base. I gather it is already not doing a very good job of bringing in lots of new and younger fans.

So yes....you and I matter.

 

[vintly]

This incident will - if it hasn't already - go down in the annals of F1 history and will be referred to often. Mark it well!

I wonder do you mean as a landmark incident that will be referred to for the contentious detail of the incident itself, or do you mean more, perhaps in relation to Vettel’s career?