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.

 

[Bill Boddy]

So is a move to close the door on someone who is trying to overtake, commonly known as defending their position, allowed or not now?

Whether Vettel's reaction to the incident was right or wrong is a different matter.

 

[Izumi]

Vettel IMHO was shafted by FiA - Stewards far too many times in recent years. I do not totally endorse his actions in parc ferme after race, however I fully understand his frustration is at boil point. After all, when Hamilton felt wronged in the past, it was not totally sing and song later on either. Angry drivers are part of the life in F1 (and elsewhere in racing).

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

So is a move to close the door on someone who is trying to overtake, commonly known as defending their position, allowed or not now?

by the looks of it it is not allowed, and if by some reason a driver misses a gear and loses time out of a turn and someone gets close to him he has to give up his position

I have seen a very interesting article on the race, SNAI, a sport betting firm, if paying as winner Hamilton as well as Vettel

 

[F1Brits_90]

 

[Johnny Carwash]

He didn’t pull the manoeuvre off so it’s irrelevant.Also if Hamilton hadn’t been right behind him would Vettel have had the penalty in the 1st place?

 

[Hamberg]

No because it wouldn’t have been unsafe.
Most if not all the opinions have come out prior to the stewards explanation. Vettel said he did not see Hamilton, they ruled he did. Vettel claims he couldn’t have done anything else, they ruled he could have made more effort to keep further left.
Vettel screwed up, Hamilton without the penalty was disadvantaged as he was looking good for a move and dropped back quite a bit having to brake. Vettel stopped us having a true race at that point because he buckled under pressure. Not the first time either. The decision just changed the finishing order.
I was against the decision until I read the explanation, the stewards have more at their disposal and are experts than us armchair critics.

 

[Angel]

I like that arguement F1Brits_90, good find!

 

[Ruslan]

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?

Actually...I think the penalty is very much covered under Article 27.3:

"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...."

But regardless...there were two rule violations there...."when it is safe to do so" and "without gaining any lasting advantage" (which was clearly the interpretation of Verstappen maintaining the lead after cutting across the grass in Mexico in 2016).

My point all along is not that the stewards did a right or wrong decision (as I don't think I would have ruled as they did)...but in fact they were justified to do so and it was a reasonable interpretation of the rules as written and as previously exercised in other cases (again Mexico 2016). I do believe the stewards are getting considerable unjustified criticism for enforcing the rules as written and as previously interpreted. What standards or rules are they supposed to use?

What is missing in these discussions is a suggested alternative set of rules that would result in the stewards ruling differently. Does anyone have a suggestion on how that rule should be written?

 

[F1Brits_90]

I don't the get the safe to do so argument as it doesn't work in this situation. because as we said before if he breaks at 105mph on grass he takes both out. also this might another occadion for sport trying to be too perfect & overregulated that is rearing it head, im noticeing it in football recently. why does there have to be blame all the time in F1 this was just 1 of those things & was hardly deliberate. for me its a racing incident

lets give heidfeld a 5 second penalty for not re-entering the track until it was safe to do so

 

[Izumi]

Jackie Stewart provides insight on Vettel - Hamilton row

 

[vintly]

I think Jackie Stewart is a bit of a tit, as he says, 'You shouldn't get punished for an error of judgement..."

He wasn't, he was punished for dangerous driving / blocking / call it what you want, but it wasn't for an error of judgement.

He also says, "In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn't blocking Lewis."

I'm not even going to start on that one.

Didn't Jackie and Hammy have a little bust-up years ago? Sounds like he hasn't gotten over it.

 

[Johnny Carwash]

Don't need to read what Jackie Stewart thinks, to know that he will say Vettel is the greatest driver ever,and it was all Hamilton’s fault for what happened.

 

[Izumi]

Actually JS is voicing his opinion over how much (or how little) control Vettel had steering his car during rejoining track at those speeds. Vettel was defending himself along the same lines, which contradicts all knowing stewards, who, through their decision, made a liar of him and did not believe him. Hamilton, Andretti and several other drivers who actually know a thing or two about driving F1 car have taken Vettel's side in this dispute, and that's a point of this discussion. I am not sure what's on Rosberg's mind.

 

[Brogan]

What I can say is if I was in the lead and I made a mistake and went wide, I probably would have done the same thing.
...
And when I say I'd do the same, I would have tried to squeeze him too.

That is not Hamilton taking Vettel's side. Quite the opposite.

 

[sobriety]

That's Hamilton basically saying "some you win, some you lose". Hopefully he'll remember that when he's next on the wrong end of a dubious decision.

 

[F1Brits_90]

I think Jackie Stewart is a bit of a tit, as he says, 'You shouldn't get punished for an error of judgement..."

He wasn't, he was punished for dangerous driving / blocking / call it what you want, but it wasn't for an error of judgement.

He also says, "In my mind, I am 100 per cent sure that he wasn't blocking Lewis."

I'm not even going to start on that one.

Didn't Jackie and Hammy have a little bust-up years ago? Sounds like he hasn't gotten over it.

i agree with that Jackie stewart has an issue with Lewis Hamilton. but come on majority of drivers around the world disagree your talking world champs & some of most respected people in the paddock. you look at the agree list the only impartial person i can find is damon hill. other 3 Rosberg & Wolff are biased. Palmer said it was harsh & didnt say he agree with it but with the letter of law it jad to be given

 

[Angel]

It's all about blame these days, nothing can be taken as just one of those things that happens in that situation anymore. It all started with this find someone to blame and sue them concept I think. It seems there is no longer allowed to be an error of judgement or a mistake, it's all about finding a person to blame and making sure they're punished. We're all becoming too intolerant of each other sadly.

 

[Jimbob]

Jolyon Palmer column: Why Sebastian Vettel deserved his penalty

"By the letter of the law, Vettel was guilty.

He either crowded another driver off the circuit - Hamilton into the wall on the exit of Turn Four, to the point where the Mercedes driver had to anchor on the brakes to avoid a collision.

Or, as his defence said, his natural momentum took him across the full width of the circuit. But in that case he is guilty of rejoining the circuit in an unsafe manner, as he was not in full control of his car, to the extent that he ran Hamilton off the road in an unsafe manner.

One of these scenarios has to be correct.

If he was forced to run all the way into Hamilton, that's not safe. If he wasn't, then he deliberately did it, and that's not fair and deserves a penalty.

You can't have it both ways, and you need to have it both ways to avoid the penalty here."

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Actually...I think the penalty is very much covered under Article 27.3:

"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...."

But regardless...there were two rule violations there...."when it is safe to do so" and "without gaining any lasting advantage" (which was clearly the interpretation of Verstappen maintaining the lead after cutting across the grass in Mexico in 2016).

I don't have a problem with the wording of art 27.3, but it clearly refers to a car re-entering the track when the driver has some control of it, if you have no control the strict intepretation of that rule means that you are punished for making a mistake which sounds a bit extreme to me.

Regarding "gaining any lasting advantage" that is clearly out of the question because when Vettel committed to that turn he was over a second clear of Hamilton, after he re-joined the track Hamilton had to brake to avoid hitting him so Vettel had lost any advantage that he had when he made his mistake.

But the point is that according to what is available on the web (Autosport and many other web sites) Vettel was punished because Hamilton had to brake in order to avoid hitting Vettel, what they are saying is that since Vettel left the track he had to give his position to Hamilton. To my knowledge they are not charging him for re-joining the track unsafely, it's not as if he had any option, he was lucky not to hit the barriers, the stewards know that full well.

Anyway do you know if there is a print out of the stewards' decision? that would be quite useful

 

[sobriety]

I think that the way the stewards saw it was that Vettel was in at least enough control to not end up where he did if he chose to, so they felt they had to give him a penalty.

He's not as good as Rosberg at faking being out of control is the way I saw it