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.

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

Despite the fact he may well get penalised for his behaviour, that's one thing I like about Sebastian. He doesn't hide it and is often light-hearted. It's good for the show. So many characters in F1 are so dull these days.

 

[F1Brits_90]

on that steward quote, i dislike them using the final 1/2 second in the 5 sec incident to punish him

Max from p9 to p5
Gasly from p5 to p8.....?????

yes i heard rumours of that there were 18 other drivers in the canadian gp. im trying my best to defend gasly, i never expect him to beat Verstappen but that was ghastly 45/50 secs behind verstappen, lapped by both hamilton & vettel. as ted said he was struggling to even mount an attack on stroll on much fresher tyres & i kept an eye on timing, stroll was pulling away at 1 stage. its unacceptable. i think he will get a full season but hes pushing the notorious thin patience of red bull. when Kyvat got dumped much less

 

[Izumi]

Vettel's behaviour afterwards was genuinely hilarious and he knew exactly what he was doing and how far he could push it. I don't know if he and/or the team will face additional penalties for that. The controversy about the initial penalty may be sufficient to avoid more.

Schumacher in Austria for his action on the podium was penalized.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

From an Autosport article, apparently.

The movement to straighten the wheel, which put the Ferrari into the path of Hamilton's Mercedes, is believed to be key to the unanimous decision by the stewards to punish Vettel.

sorry for being pedantic but Vettel straightens the wheel when the car is heading straight, which is what he was supposed to do since the next bit of track was going straight. so when Vettel regained control of his car he decided to go straight, which sounds reasonable as the track was, once again and I know that it sounds funny, straight.

The stewards are basically saying that once Vettel had regained control of his car rather than keep it were it was - more or less on the racing line, as a matter of fact the racing line was bit to the right because they all go over the kerb there and he didn't (had he hit the kerb before regaining control of his car he would have hit the wall) - he should have moved to the left to let Hamilton through.

The stewards position seems to me to be entirely logical if they deem that Vettel by going off track had gained an advantage, the flaw that I see in that view is that Vettel didn't gain an advantage by going off the road, he lost some time instead.

So the stewards are saying that since Vettel made a mistake, lost his car and temporarily left the track, on that basis of that alone he should have given his position to Hamilton. I persoanlly don't think that this is what the rules say however I would be more than willing to debate such a position if it was presented in an open and honest way, ie. Vettel made a mistake and as a consequence of that alone he should have given his position to Hamilton. The reconstrution of events given by the stewards, which I have seen in various web sites, to me looks a bit coy as it seems to imply that by keeping the steering wheel straight Vettel actually moved towards Hamilton and that was not the case, by keeping the steering wheel straight Vettel didn't move out of Hamilton's way which is an entirely different matter.

Still that doesn't explain why in §Monaco in 2016 the stewards didn't punish Hamilton who turned right on purpose to squeeze Ricciardo against the wall. And that doesn't explain why any former F1 driver (bar Rosberg) who spoke of this matter criticized the stewards' decision.

As I said I don't want to argue on this matter, it just seems to me that the version of events presented by the stewards missed a crucial point and that such point is the fact that the track was going straight there and Vettel was on the racing line. To me Vettel had to be punished for what happened after the race was over (even though I fully support him venting his anger, he knew what he was doing and I'm sure that he can bear the consequences of his actions) and not for what happened during the race itself

 

[Jimbob]

Schumacher in Austria for his action on the podium was penalized.

2002? Was it a financial penalty?

 

[gethinceri]

No, Ferrari took the fine of a million bucks.

 

[Izumi]

sorry for being pedantic but Vettel straightens the wheel when the car is heading straight, which is what he was supposed to do since the next bit of track was going straight. so when Vettel regained control of his car he decided to go straight, which sounds reasonable as the track was, once again and I know that it sounds funny, straight.

The stewards are basically saying that once Vettel had regained control of his car rather than keep it were it was - more or less on the racing line, as a matter of fact the racing line was bit to the right because they all go over the kerb there and he didn't (had he hit the kerb before regaining control of his car he would have hit the wall) - he should have moved to the left to let Hamilton through.

The stewards position seems to me to be entirely logical if they deem that Vettel by going off track had gained an advantage, the flaw that I see in that view is that Vettel didn't gain an advantage by going off the road, he lost some time instead.

So the stewards are saying that since Vettel made a mistake, lost his car and temporarily left the track, on that basis of that alone he should have given his position to Hamilton. I persoanlly don't think that this is what the rules say however I would be more than willing to debate such a position if it was presented in an open and honest way, ie. Vettel made a mistake and as a consequence of that alone he should have given his position to Hamilton. The reconstrution of events given by the stewards, which I have seen in various web sites, to me looks a bit coy as it seems to imply that by keeping the steering wheel straight Vettel actually moved towards Hamilton and that was not the case, by keeping the steering wheel straight Vettel didn't move out of Hamilton's way which is an entirely different matter.

Still that doesn't explain why in §Monaco in 2016 the stewards didn't punish Hamilton who turned right on purpose to squeeze Ricciardo against the wall. And that doesn't explain why any former F1 driver (bar Rosberg) who spoke of this matter criticized the stewards' decision.

As I said I don't want to argue on this matter, it just seems to me that the version of events presented by the stewards missed a crucial point and that such point is the fact that the track was going straight there and Vettel was on the racing line. To me Vettel had to be punished for what happened after the race was over (even though I fully support him venting his anger, he knew what he was doing and I'm sure that he can bear the consequences of his actions) and not for what happened during the race itself

Well argued, sensei.

 

[Johnny Carwash]

Think the reason Hamilton didn’t get a penalty at Monaco is explained here...

 

[Ruslan]

Is it the one race in which Stewards let Verstappen really scre* Vettel's race first, and than later on when it really didn't matter - after race - for good measure they "punished" RBR driver? That was one of the most disgusting race stewardship EVER!

Well....you do seem to be ignoring the point I am making. The first minute+ of the video is key here. Verstappen exits the track in the lead....and re-enters the track in the lead. The commentators conclude that he has to give up the position, Red Bull radios Verstappen that he will probably have to give up the position and at 1:13 Vettel comes on the radio saying "He has to let me go, he had to let me go." Versappen was later penalized 5 seconds for this rule infraction...giving Vettel third place.

So...apparently everyone (commentators, Red Bull, Vettel and the stewards) understood that when Verstappen left the track in the lead and re-entered in the lead, he had to give up that position.

So the actual article 27.3 reads (the parts in bold is my addition for clarity): "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...."

Verstappen was penalized for 5 seconds in 2016 for violating point 2 above. On the other hand, Vettel was penalized yesterday for violating point 1 above. On the other hand, even if he can successfully argue that this is not justified (either on appeal or in the court of public opinion), it does not change the fact that he also violated point 2, the same as Verstappen did in 2016. If Vettel can say in 2016 that "He has to let me go" then really what can he say now?

If I was his lawyer (and I am not a lawyer)...I would advise not appealing, because the way the regulations are written, I do not see how he is going to win. They could easily argue he made two violations there.

 

[olegg]

Even if Ricciardo says something stupid, it doesn't make this thing less stupid....
To equate what happened between him and Hamilton in Monaco and what Vettel did in Canada....
well, there is needing to be very biased.
The fact is that in Monaco and Canada the decision was made by stewards but not Hamilton.
The decision each time take different stewards and they are based on a specific episode
and the situation in the race.
The fact is that only Vettel's hysteria prevented to him correcting the consequences of his mistake
in the form of the minimum possible penalty.
Well, the fact that there are fans of Formula 1, who believe that Vettel in this situation right...
Someone and in Baku thought Vettel was right... too....
It not to help Vettel will act right in the future.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

Forgetting the penalty for a moment... that's now Hockenheim, Monza, Austin, Suzuka, Bahrain and Montreal where Vettel has cracked.

Not what I'd expect from a 4 time WDC!

 

[F1Brits_90]

Forgetting the penalty for a moment... that's now Hockenheim, Monza, Austin, Suzuka, Bahrain and Montreal where Vettel has cracked.

Not what I'd expect from a 4 time WDC!

very true you could say with 2011 this is 2nd time at Montreal. but he does struggle, even if i would defend him slightly & say he was probally edging the braking point further & further back. or his brakes were fading

 

[olegg]

“Disrespectful” Vettel deserved his penalty – Rosberg
“He has such strong self belief and always thinks that he is in the right, and then always wants to blame other people.
And then he just loses focus in those moments, and doesn’t make the most of it. That was not great to see from him.
And then after the race, all those gestures and disrespectful comments calling the stewards ‘blind men’ and all that, it’s just unnecessary, it’s not very good.”

 

[Jimbob]

What about Ferrari "forgetting" to let Leclerc know about Vettel's five second penalty? Sounds very convenient to me. If Leclerc had pushed a bit, he could easily have taken second.

 

[Izumi]

Well....you do seem to be ignoring the point I am making. The first minute+ of the video is key here. Verstappen exits the track in the lead....and re-enters the track in the lead. The commentators conclude that he has to give up the position, Red Bull radios Verstappen that he will probably have to give up the position and at 1:13 Vettel comes on the radio saying "He has to let me go, he had to let me go." Versappen was later penalized 5 seconds for this rule infraction...giving Vettel third place.

So...apparently everyone (commentators, Red Bull, Vettel and the stewards) understood that when Verstappen left the track in the lead and re-entered in the lead, he had to give up that position.

So the actual article 27.3 reads (the parts in bold is my addition for clarity): "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...."

Verstappen was penalized for 5 seconds in 2016 for violating point 2 above. On the other hand, Vettel was penalized yesterday for violating point 1 above. On the other hand, even if he can successfully argue that this is not justified (either on appeal or in the court of public opinion), it does not change the fact that he also violated point 2, the same as Verstappen did in 2016. If Vettel can say in 2016 that "He has to let me go" then really what can he say now?

If I was his lawyer (and I am not a lawyer)...I would advise not appealing, because the way the regulations are written, I do not see how he is going to win. They could easily argue he made two violations there.

Somewhat grudgingly I do agree, that protesting steward's decision might turn ugly, and perhaps it is wiser to let it pass. Our mutual (and rather knowledgeable) friend Publius described Vettel's situation in critical point during the race sufficiently for rest of us to understand it. Unfortunately, as it is common these days, substantive discussion turned rather quickly by some in here into irrelevancy. It is painful to read some of the stuff these days.

 

[Angel]

Well Hamilton seems to sympathise with what Vettel did and says he'd have probably done the same thing in that situation. He describes Vettel's reaction after he went off as being a normal human instinct.

Hamilton: I would've done the same as Vettel

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

So the actual article 27.3 reads (the parts in bold is my addition for clarity): "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...."

Verstappen was penalized for 5 seconds in 2016 for violating point 2 above. On the other hand, Vettel was penalized yesterday for violating point 1 above. On the other hand, even if he can successfully argue that this is not justified (either on appeal or in the court of public opinion), it does not change the fact that he also violated point 2, the same as Verstappen did in 2016. If Vettel can say in 2016 that "He has to let me go" then really what can he say now?

If I was his lawyer (and I am not a lawyer)...I would advise not appealing, because the way the regulations are written, I do not see how he is going to win. They could easily argue he made two violations there.

we haven't seen the FIA ruling so far but from what has been circulating around the web (and posted here by Brogan yesterday) it seems that the stewards have not punished him for either section (i) or (ii) of article 27.3 but rather because he got in the way of Hamilton.

In terms of (i) since it seems that any driver apart from Rosberg thinks that Vettel was a passenger when he re-joined the track it would be quite hard to argue that Vettel was guilty of that, not even the Romans punished people for "objective responsibility" (the term might not be the right one in legal English and I apologise for that). Re (ii) did they touch? no they did not, despite the fact that for a moment Hamilton's front wheels were side by side to Vettel's rear wheels (that can only happen if there was at least a car width available to Hamilton, unlike Monaco 2016 when Ricciardo went to the barrier and had to take action to avoid an accident, but that was fine...). what happened was that Hamilton had to brake because out of the turn he had Vettel's car in front of him going slowly. I'm not aware of any driver who made a mistake (ie missing a gear or engine problem etc) and gets out of a corner slower than usual and gets penalised for doing so.

Besides yesterday Bill Boddy made a very good point when he highlighted the fact that Hamilton had plenty of room to the inside to pass Vettel, you can't blame Vettel for that, Vettel made a mistake and it's a matter of life, Hamilton didn't have the focus to realise that he could have easily passed on the inside and it's another matter of life, the point that I'm trying to make is that when something goes wrong there doesn't always need to be someone who deserves to be punished, otherwise a considerable share of the human population would be in jail (for no good reason other than the blame culture).

Finally don't you guys think that the fact that any driver who spoke about this matter (apart from Rosberg) has gone public strongly criticising the stewards decision could be rather significant? Is there a conspiracy against the stewards?

 

[Izumi]

Vettel actually said exactly the same after race, namely, had Hamilton attempted to pass him on the left, there was no way for Seb to stop him. All of this is of course wisdom after the game is over.

 

[Chasz]

I watched the race and the incident and was immediately outraged by the ruling. It affected the quality of the racing up until lap 47. Ham had been all over the back of Vet until then but had no reason to after the penalty. Whilst the racing was spoilt by the decision, I defer to the expertise of the stewards in such circumstances and move on.

Regarding comments about passing in the left, I'm not sure there was space at the right time. Had Hamilton been slightly further behind then yes but Hamilton was right on the racing line just to the right of vettel as he slid off the grass and he would've had to lifted off the throttle to then switch to the left, which would've lost him the required momentum anyway. In some ways vettel was lucky not to lose the position on track due to the timing of the events and sliding across the whole width of the track, but he was more unlucky for the stewards' decision!

 

[Izumi]

I didn't mean to imply that Hamilton made a wrong choice. He had to decide between left and right, and once he commit himself to one side, there was no way for him going back, and rest is history. Left side take was just idle consideration. Vettel in his racing history was, as Hamilton in this race, in similar situations a few times, but end for him was not that good.