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]

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

Safety aspect in the rule is ambiguous, and means different thing to different people as we have it after Canada. Leave this out for that reason. It's just as redundant and confusing such as is parent telling his son, the F1 driver, son, drive carefully. Jimbob obviously doesn't agree, but that's OK. Forum is just right tool to discuss it among fans.

I think rule should merely describe condition when driver can keep his position after he rejoined track (as Vettel and Verstappen have), and when and how quickly they must slot behind. Instruction so clear, that team and driver do not have to ask stewards what they think, and respond appropriately on their own.

With respect to driver being "pushed" off the track, there is need to address this situation separately, because it is happening quite often almost every race with someone. I have no recommendation to make. I would conduct first consultation with many drivers, from Mario Andretti to Vettel today to understand difference between intent, and racing incident. They know better than I do, why it is happening and how to evaluate each case.
In fact, I am unsettled every time when we are second guessing driver's intent, and I rather suspect that we will never write laws, which will avoid ambiguity of some kind, thus I would be inclined not to write them at all. Let drivers to sort it out on the track.

Ask yourself whether Hamilton would have acted differently, had he knew, that Vettel will be not penalized for driving up to curb?

Situation we had in Canada was terrible, permitting some making claims and contradicting Vettel, that he saw (initially in critical moment) where Hamilton was. Second guessing driver's intent is waste of effort IMO. Playing God is dangerous, and there has to be better way how to look at it, without needing for visit driver's mind.

 

[Jimbob]

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?

All of the above, I suspect, as well as making a memorable occasion of a pretty routine race.

 

[Jimbob]

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.

Either I didn't make my point clearly or else you missed it

I was not trying to suggest that fans were unimportant. What I was trying to say was when the stewards, or some other authority, have to make a decision, the opinions of the fans are unimportant.

It's kind of like when a ref awards a penalty even when the fans are booing and trying stuff on to the pitch. The ref still has to make a call and stick to it.

The decision in Montreal, no matter which way it went, is only going to increase F1 viewership. Remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

 

[FB]

Didn't this happen a week ago? I've found other things to get wound up about since then, like the price of tinned peas and other inconsequential matters.

 

[RasputinLives]

A tin if mushy peas is actually cheaper than a tin of marrowfat peas. I find that odd. Surely there should be extra charge for the mushing.

 

[cider_and_toast]

Not really. You can use a lower quality pea for the mushed ones whereas if you serve the peas whole you need to see a decent pea for quality purposes.

I really should get that French GP PQR Thread done as it would give us a new GP to talk about.

 

[RasputinLives]

cider_and_toast so you're telling me that I'm eating poor quality peas when I have mushy? I'm outraged.

 

[cousinDave]

Didn't this happen a week ago? I've found other things to get wound up about since then, like the price of tinned peas and other inconsequential matters.

Yeah it's good that a race should have so much discussion. Must be the most popular for a while. Pity it's for the wrong reason.

 

[Ruslan]

Either I didn't make my point clearly or else you missed it

I was not trying to suggest that fans were unimportant. What I was trying to say was when the stewards, or some other authority, have to make a decision, the opinions of the fans are unimportant.

It's kind of like when a ref awards a penalty even when the fans are booing and trying stuff on to the pitch. The ref still has to make a call and stick to it.

The decision in Montreal, no matter which way it went, is only going to increase F1 viewership. Remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Well sorry if I misinterpreted your point. It does happen. Obviously stewarding and other such decisions must be made without commercial considerations. There is no question that F1 would have been better served by either a Ferrari win or a fight to the finish, than what actually occurred.

I can think of one clear case where they needed to come up with a solution on the fly instead of mindlessly following regulations and that was the race at Indy where most of the cars had to pull off. That truly hurt F1 in the U.S. Some controversy is good for publicity but it can hurt.

I do think F1 need to take corrective action or at least fully explain the rules moving forward. This is a long-term festering problem that makes the rulings look arbitrary and biased. That can hurt F1 in the long run.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

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.

Sorry for not answering earlier but I was in Londinium and we had a lot of planning to do...

I disagree with Palmer's statement that he didn't need to be on 50% to save the car, IMHO he needed that and some luck as well, he was oversteering and if he wasn't on the throttle he would have spun. When he crossed the grass he had to be at 25% because there was a fraction of a second when he had one rear wheel on tarmac (with some sort of traction as that tyre was dirty) and on the grass with basically no traction whatsoever, if he wasn't on power he would have spun, if he gave too much engine he would have spun. Also IMHO he couldn't try to rejoin at a narrow angle because he would have increased the amount of time that he had one on his rear wheels on the tarmac and the other on the grass, that just doesn't work (even without taking into account the fact that on grass you have no chance of making a car turn on slick tyres, as all the drivers said in those conditions you are a passenger)

 

[Ruslan]

Safety aspect in the rule is ambiguous, and means different thing to different people as we have it after Canada. Leave this out for that reason. It's just as redundant and confusing such as is parent telling his son, the F1 driver, son, drive carefully. Jimbob obviously doesn't agree, but that's OK. Forum is just right tool to discuss it among fans.

I think rule should merely describe condition when driver can keep his position after he rejoined track (as Vettel and Verstappen have), and when and how quickly they must slot behind. Instruction so clear, that team and driver do not have to ask stewards what they think, and respond appropriately on their own.

With respect to driver being "pushed" off the track, there is need to address this situation separately, because it is happening quite often almost every race with someone. I have no recommendation to make. I would conduct first consultation with many drivers, from Mario Andretti to Vettel today to understand difference between intent, and racing incident. They know better than I do, why it is happening and how to evaluate each case.
In fact, I am unsettled every time when we are second guessing driver's intent, and I rather suspect that we will never write laws, which will avoid ambiguity of some kind, thus I would be inclined not to write them at all. Let drivers to sort it out on the track.

Ask yourself whether Hamilton would have acted differently, had he knew, that Vettel will be not penalized for driving up to curb?

Situation we had in Canada was terrible, permitting some making claims and contradicting Vettel, that he saw (initially in critical moment) where Hamilton was. Second guessing driver's intent is waste of effort IMO. Playing God is dangerous, and there has to be better way how to look at it, without needing for visit driver's mind.

Well.....we are in danger here of having a real discussion.

Safety aspect in the rule is ambiguous, and means different thing to different people as we have it after Canada. Leave this out for that reason. It's just as redundant and confusing such as is parent telling his son, the F1 driver, son, drive carefully. Jimbob obviously doesn't agree, but that's OK. Forum is just right tool to discuss it among fans.

I don't know how you run a racing series (or any sports series) without a safety rule. Right now they clearly have one. Should it be different than what it is?

The fact that accidents rarely result in injuries and drivers can now safely collide with other cars means I don't think you can just leave it to driver judgment, otherwise you will have mayhem. They will loose their temper and use the cars as weapons (I can think of several cases of that happening).

I think rule should merely describe condition when driver can keep his position after he rejoined track (as Vettel and Verstappen have), and when and how quickly they must slot behind. Instruction so clear, that team and driver do not have to ask stewards what they think, and respond appropriately on their own.

That probably does need to be more precisely clarified. I think for practical purposes a following car has to be within a second at the last timing check point for this to apply. If you a clearly well ahead and re-enter the track, you should not have to give up the position. I don't know if that is the current interpretation of the rule...but I suspect it is. The one that caught Hamilton up at one point was he gave up a position and reclaimed it into the next corner. They penalized him for that. That probably needs to be defined.

The question is....should the lead car always be required to give up his position if he fully exits the track (where the following car is within a second)? I gather a number of people think that they should not.

With respect to driver being "pushed" off the track, there is need to address this situation separately, because it is happening quite often almost every race with someone. I have no recommendation to make. I would conduct first consultation with many drivers, from Mario Andretti to Vettel today to understand difference between intent, and racing incident. They know better than I do, why it is happening and how to evaluate each case.

Again, because it is "safe" to push someone off the track (something almost no one would try in the 1950s -1980s)...there probably needs to be some rule about it. I gather the current requirement is that driver has to always leave a car width for the other car...although that does not seem to be always followed.

In fact, I am unsettled every time when we are second guessing driver's intent, and I rather suspect that we will never write laws, which will avoid ambiguity of some kind, thus I would be inclined not to write them at all. Let drivers to sort it out on the track.

Well, I don't think you can always determine intent. You may have to make the rules based upon physical location.

 

[Ruslan]

Sorry for not answering earlier but I was in Londinium and we had a lot of planning to do...

Nothing to apologize for. You do have a real life. I am just some guy on a discussion board.

I disagree with Palmer's statement that he didn't need to be on 50% to save the car, IMHO he needed that and some luck as well, he was oversteering and if he wasn't on the throttle he would have spun. When he crossed the grass he had to be at 25% because there was a fraction of a second when he had one rear wheel on tarmac (with some sort of traction as that tyre was dirty) and on the grass with basically no traction whatsoever, if he wasn't on power he would have spun, if he gave too much engine he would have spun. Also IMHO he couldn't try to rejoin at a narrow angle because he would have increased the amount of time that he had one on his rear wheels on the tarmac and the other on the grass, that just doesn't work (even without taking into account the fact that on grass you have no chance of making a car turn on slick tyres, as all the drivers said in those conditions you are a passenger)

Well, I suspect the reason he was adding power had a whole lot to do him still trying to compete with Hamilton for the position.

But, it does appear that this is situation where the stewards had to make a judgment call. Would it be possible to have the rules written in such a way so that a judgment call would not have to be made? This does not appear to be "cut and dried" one way or the other, as some people have tried to argue. Do we overturn stewards decisions based upon majority opinion of retired world champions?

 

[Angel]

A tin if mushy peas is actually cheaper than a tin of marrowfat peas. I find that odd. Surely there should be extra charge for the mushing.

Depends on the brand, Sainsbury's sell Farrow's peas for 55p and Mushy Peas for 55p, though the Farrows are on offer right now at 40p if you're interested, you could then mush them yourself

 

[Izumi]

WATCH: Hamilton has similar block to Sebastian Vettel's in 2016 but WITHOUT penalty

Have a look at this! Back in 2016, Lewis Hamilton had a very similar incident to Sebastian Vettel today in Canada: he made a mistake, left the track, and blocked the chasing (quicker) car from getting ahead. Vettel got penalised today, but Hamilton didn’t back in 2016 at Monaco!

In memory to all who claimed that FiA needs to be consistent, which is why they shafted Vettel in Canada. There was more, which involves Alonso, but what's the point today? FiA is inconsistent. That's old news.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

But, it does appear that this is situation where the stewards had to make a judgment call. Would it be possible to have the rules written in such a way so that a judgment call would not have to be made? This does not appear to be "cut and dried" one way or the other, as some people have tried to argue. Do we overturn stewards decisions based upon majority opinion of retired world champions?

I think that any rule, however detailed, needs to be interpreted because in practice no two cases are the same. I don't have any issue with the wording of art. 27.3 for example, IMHO it addresses rather clearly the spirit of that provision, whch IMHO is to punish either who deliberaly re-enters the track in an unsafe manner or who obtains an advantage by leaving the track. That, as far as I can tell, is the spirit of the law.

Obviously there are various ways to ensure consistency in the interpretation of the rules, either you set precedents with some sort of binding power, as per English's law stare decisis, or you set up a higher judiciary entity that has the sole purpose of interpreting the rules (for example in Italy that is what the Corte di Cassazione does, and in other civil law jurisdicions they have similar bodies).

IMHO a very simple solution would be to have consistency in the stewards, if there were always the same then they would probably always interpret the rules in a similar fashion.

regarding the opinions express by former driver, including many WDCs, I think that it should be consider similar to what in matters of law is the "doctrine", ie specialists who comment on the law. Not binding but generally speaking rather significant

 

[Ruslan]

I think that any rule, however detailed, needs to be interpreted because in practice no two cases are the same. I don't have any issue with the wording of art. 27.3 for example, IMHO it addresses rather clearly the spirit of that provision, whch IMHO is to punish either who deliberaly re-enters the track in an unsafe manner or who obtains an advantage by leaving the track. That, as far as I can tell, is the spirit of the law.

Obviously there are various ways to ensure consistency in the interpretation of the rules, either you set precedents with some sort of binding power, as per English's law stare decisis, or you set up a higher judiciary entity that has the sole purpose of interpreting the rules (for example in Italy that is what the Corte di Cassazione does, and in other civil law jurisdicions they have similar bodies).

IMHO a very simple solution would be to have consistency in the stewards, if there were always the same then they would probably always interpret the rules in a similar fashion.

regarding the opinions express by former driver, including many WDCs, I think that it should be consider similar to what in matters of law is the "doctrine", ie specialists who comment on the law. Not binding but generally speaking rather significant

Well....there is no question that a pool for "professional" stewards would help address the problem with consistency. This is an suggestion that people have been making for a long time (including you)...but for some reason never happens. Not sure why. It is relatively easy to do.

 

[olegg]

Well....there is no question that a pool for "professional" stewards would help address the problem with consistency. This is an suggestion that people have been making for a long time (including you)...but for some reason never happens. Not sure why. It is relatively easy to do.

Stewards are not robots, but real people.
And they do not evaluate the static image,
but they judge live action taking place on different circuits
under different conditions and with its nuances...

 

[Ruslan]

Stewards are not robots, but real people.
And they do not evaluate the static image,
but they judge live action taking place on different circuits
under different conditions and with its nuances...

But it would help for consistency if you had the same group of stewards at each race.

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

Do we know who the other stewards were apart from Pirro? They used to list the stewards after each race but I can't find that for this race. Pirro isn't exactly inexperienced himself as he raced in 31 Grands Prix and won Le Mans 5 times.

 

[Izumi]

Do we know who the other stewards were apart from Pirro? They used to list the stewards after each race but I can't find that for this race. Pirro isn't exactly inexperienced himself as he raced in 31 Grands Prix and won Le Mans 5 times.

FiA is your (fake) friend.