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.

 

[F1Brits_90]

i love this pettiness

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

I'm not sure what numbers you are working from Publius. Daimler AG have a turnover of €167 billion FIAT €110 billion. If you want to compare their divisions, AMG and Ferrari, I will have to do more digging through the Daimler accounts.

Ferrari is no longer incorporated into FCA, and the 93 bn euros for Mercedes' (AMG is a brand owned by Daimler AG, not a standalone entity Mercedes-AMG: The Mercedes-Benz sports car and high-performance brand | Daimler) turnover is referred to the car division in 2018 (https://www.daimler.com/investors/key-figures/divisions.html)

Don't get me wrong but you should check your sources because Ferrari has had nothing to do with FCA for quite some time (https://corporate.ferrari.com/en/investors/ferrari-spin), if you want to check what brands are part of FCA you can easily check that on FCA's website
https://www.fcagroup.com/en-US/Pages/home.aspx

I know that claiming that Ferrari has access to unlimited resources can be very handy but given that we're talking of listed companies who make their financials public it's very tough to substantiate a claim like that

 

[FB]

You are quite right Publius Cornelius Scipio, Ferrari is no longer owned by FIAT. It is now owned by Exor who have a turnover of €143.2 billion.

I shall not comment any more as I know this got a bit heated last time it came up.

 

[F1Brits_90]

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Could Vettel have stayed off the racing line when he came back on the track (this is probably best answered by former drivers)?

if he was slower and driving a rally car maybe, Vettel was very lucky that he didn't hit the wall (I say lucky because on the grass no one can fully control a car at those speeds). If we want to do some hair splitting we could argue that Hamilton could have had the sense to back off and overtake Vettel on the inbside, but again we are talking about fiction.

What Vettel AND Hamitlon did was what anyone else in such a situation would have done, Vettel had to correct some oversteer and was very lucky to avoid the wall, Hamilton saw a gap and went for it, and they didn't even touch each other

 

[no-FIAt-please]

Personally I think people are overreacting, if it wasn't for the lead people would have moved on already.

I'm 60/40 in favour of letting it remain a racing incident instead of adding a penalty but I certainly don't think it was a horrendous decision.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

You are quite right Publius Cornelius Scipio, Ferrari is no longer owned by FIAT. It is now owned by Exor who have a turnover of €143.2 billion.

I shall not comment any more as I know this got a bit heated last time it came up.

shall we add to Mercedes' number the rest of Daimler AG as well as Geely? come on, let's be honest, they are different entities, Geely doesn't give money to Daimler... And Exor doesn't give money to Ferrari (it's the other way round)... or you should claim that Ferrari has an even bigger amount of money at their disposal as Vanguard is one of their shareholders and Vanguard has assets under management for 5.3 trillions... please, let's try and keep this discussion real


my point was about double standard, in all fairness I rest my case

 

[Ruslan]

if he was slower and driving a rally car maybe, Vettel was very lucky that he didn't hit the wall (I say lucky because on the grass no one can fully control a car at those speeds). If we want to do some hair splitting we could argue that Hamilton could have had the sense to back off and overtake Vettel on the inbside, but again we are talking about fiction.

What Vettel AND Hamitlon did was what anyone else in such a situation would have done, Vettel had to correct some oversteer and was very lucky to avoid the wall, Hamilton saw a gap and went for it, and they didn't even touch each other

If he had backed off the throttle, could he have controlled the re-entry? Did he back off the throttle? Was it safe to back off the throttle?

 

[Bill Boddy]

If he had backed off the throttle, could he have controlled the re-entry? Did he back off the throttle? Was it safe to back off the throttle?

Only if he wanted Hamilton to run into him.

 

[RasputinLives]

What a joke of a sport. Only decent competition for a win we've had all year and then they go stupid and shoot themselves in the foot. What an embarrassment.

 

[Ruslan]

Well, I have been reviewing the videos...it does look like Vettel could have backed off and controlled the car. As it is, he does accelerate as he comes back on the track. So yea, from a practical point of view 1) it appears he did have control of the car and 2) it appears the part of the reason he was on the line in front of Hamilton is that he accelerated. So it does appear that he violated the rule (now I have not read the actual rule yet....). Therefore, given that the situation did appear to be under the driver's control (and the driver steward was Emmanuel Pirro) and he did re-enter the track on the line and balk Hamilton, then I think it is hard to argue that the stewards mis-interpreted the rule (or were "blind").

Therefore, I guess the real question is not whether the steward correctly or incorrectly interpreted the rules (it appears that they did correctly interpret them), but I guess the questions really are:

1. Should this be a rule at all (I fear the results if it is not)?
2. Should the rule be written differently (if so, how)?
3. Should the rule be interpreted differently (if so. how)?
4. Should the rule be more loosely interpreted/enforced if it is near the end of the race and they are fighting for position?
5. Should the rule be more consistently enforced (which kind of violates point 4 above)?
6. Or should the ruling be based upon some other point I have not thought of?

 

[siffert_fan]

Mansell and Andretti obviously disagree with your analysis.

 

[Ruslan]

Mansell and Andretti obviously disagree with your analysis.

And Damon Hill says Vettel could have left room.

But the real question is what could the stewards have ruled based upon what happened on track and what the rule book said.....and what would be the basis of that ruling.

 

[Ruslan]

Rest of my post (as I got interrupted and the time for editing ran out):

Steward decision: Stewards’ decision in full: Why Vettel was penalised

Article 38.1 that the stewards reference in their decision is just the regulation on "incidents during the race." On the other hand, Article 27.3 says "Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage...."

 

[Dartman]

And Damon Hill says Vettel could have left room.

But the real question is what could the stewards have ruled based upon what happened on track and what the rule book said.....and what would be the basis of that ruling.

Damon Hill found that in certain circumstances aggressive drivers will return to the circuit in order to win or damage a competitor come what will. although this wasn't for the championship it may have been for his job, I consider this a similar action to Schumacher back in the middle 90's in Australia.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

If he had backed off the throttle, could he have controlled the re-entry? Did he back off the throttle? Was it safe to back off the throttle?

I don't think that he could have controlled the re-entry as if he wasn't on the throttle he would have spun his car (and probably hit the wall, taking Hamilton with him). IMHO Mansell made the right point (given that he's a WDC there's little surprise in this): when you're on the grass you're a passenger, all you can do is damage limitation, and that's what Vettel did, he kept on the throttle and gave full opposite lock, IMHO he could have done nothing more

 

[Greenlantern101]

I feel the point the stewards made is that Seb broke 2 rules, first he made a mistake left the track cutting a corner a retained the lead. That is cutting a corner and gaining an advantage. Against the rules. Second when any driver rejoins the track they need to do so leaving at least 1 car width for other drivers. He didn't do that, which broke the written rule.

The stewards are racers, they want to be lenient but they had a clear case of someone retaining a position by cutting a corner and cutting someone up. So they applied the smallest penalty available. 5 seconds.

If Seb had taken his foot off the accelerator rather than going like a rocket over the grass then maybe he would of had more control on rejoining. But he didn't he kept his foot in and dangerously closed down the racing line.

I wonder what everyone would be saying if Lewis had been a millisecond slower on the brakes and Sebastian had put him in the wall taking Lewis out.

Bottom line is it was dangerous. He broke 2 rules. He got the minimum penalty available to the stewards.

Good call.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Damon Hill found that in certain circumstances aggressive drivers will return to the circuit in order to win or damage a competitor come what will. although this wasn't for the championship it may have been for his job, I consider this a similar action to Schumacher back in the middle 90's in Australia.

Schumacher's actions looked entirely intentional, Vettel was just a passenger.

Just to put things into perspective what about Mionaco 2016? Was that ok? because on that occasion (i) Hamilton was on track (wet but still much better than grass) and (ii) he re-took the racing line on purpose in order to squeeze Ricciardo against the wall.

On top of that it doesn't look as if Hamilton is saying that Vettel did that on purpose, IMHO that is quite significant

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

I feel the point the stewards made is that Seb broke 2 rules, first he made a mistake left the track cutting a corner a retained the lead. That is cutting a corner and gaining an advantage. Against the rules. Second when any driver rejoins the track they need to do so leaving at least 1 car width for other drivers. He didn't do that, which broke the written rule.

Vettel cut the corner while he was on his own, it wasn't as if he was defending from Hamilton, Hamilton was 1 second off, there's no rule that says that if by mistake you leave the track you must give your position to the car behind, that rule applies only to cars that are dicing for position and that was not the case yesterday. regarding Vettel's re-entry if he didn't leave 1 car width to Hamilton they would have touched as when Vettel finally managed to regain control of his car Hamilton's front wheels were side by side with Vettel's rear, they didn't even touch and Hamilton had eough room not to hit the wall

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

BTW does anyone know if Vettel will be punished for not parking his car in the right spot and for moving the #2 board in front of Hamilton's car? I assume that he will