F1 2021 Season

ArjenIsM3 said:
Pause at 0:47. He's already past the apex and he's still on the brakes and turning in. He's obviously braked too late in order to try and outbrake but failed, missing the corner and pushing off Lewis as a result. Stewards should have told Max to give Lewis the position but they fecked up and said no investigation necessary. That's the big thing here. The question isn't whether or not Max pushed Lewis off, because it's obvious that's what happened (though I think it's ridiculous to say he was trying to crash into Lewis, if that's what he wanted to do he wouldn't have turned in at all and just locked up his brakes and went "oops" :lol:). The big question is what would be a fair way to handle this as the stewards fecked up by saying no investigation necessary to Max didn't bother to try and keep a certain amount of time between him and Bottas. If they had said we'll investigate after the race it would be a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...
Retrospective punishments are well established in F1.
ArjenIsM3 said:
What Rosberg does there is worse and there's no question it's deliberate. You can clearly see he's not turning in at all, unlike Max. Did Rosberg get a retrospective 5s penalty for that after stewards said no investigation necesssary then? Or are you just trying to wind people up?
Click to expand...
Rosberg actually makes the corner.
 
rpitroda said:
In the same way Hamilton received his penalty, and others in the past, if you break the rules you break the rules and you should receive the appropriate penalty. Being in a title fight doesn’t and shouldn’t impact that. For the spectator it would be a shame, sure, but stewards and race officials can’t make decisions based upon that.

There are of course a variety of factors to consider. You could be pedantic about a whole host of things. Silverstone was faster, more dangerous. Max was potentially deliberate (not even in question for Lewis), was far wider, and a collision which could still have been dangerous only avoided because of the sensibility of Lewis. Some go one way, some the other.

I also disagree you can’t consider it retrospectively. If a mistake is made it should be looked at. I agree if there is nothing new, it creates an awkward precedent. But the stewards didn’t have the onboard and telemetry to sync at the time. Now they do, it should at least be evaluated.

On the penalty itself, I’m struggling on why this should be a 5s time penalty whereas Lewis effectively got what amounts to a 20-30s penalty if not more. Not to mention his advance was then also prohibited by having to overtake as a result of the penalty. I don’t think the two are proportionate to the incidents. If you set that precedent with Hamilton then you should apply it to Max.

For me, a grid penalty at the next race is the most effective way of correcting this. Something like a 5 place penalty. It’s at the start of the race so it’s not like it’s punishing him directly by losing those places, it gives the chance for him to make them up - just like if he received a penalty during the race and was then having to overtake to get back to second.
Click to expand...
I agree if you break the rules you should get a penalty, that's what the stewards are for. I just don't think Max should be made to pay for the stewards messing up. Which is exactly what you'd achieve if a retrospective 5s penalty is handed out. It would be unfair punishment. I'm not saying retrospective action should be completely off the table, I'm saying if any retrospective punishment is necessary it should be dealt with the next race. If punishment is necessary a grid penalty the next race would be the fairest option So we agree on that bit.

How did Lewis get a 20-30+ second penalty in your mind? A 10 second stop and go is exactly that right? You pit but your team has to wait 10 seconds before working on the car. It would only amount to 30s if you get the penalty in your out lap right after pitting or something as you then don't really have anything to gain from the pit stop. But since you don't have to stop right away that never happens. Considering his move was more dangerous due to the extremely high speeds and Hamilton actually taking out Max (causing a collision) it makes sense that he would be given a bigger penalty. I'm not sure if you want to factor in the damage you've caused to the opposition with your error, in this case Lewis being held up for 11 laps. If you want to do that consistently, it would have meant the only proportionate penalty for Lewis at Silverstone would have been a DSQ. Not sure that's the way to go.
 
rpitroda said:
In the same way Hamilton received his penalty, and others in the past, if you break the rules you break the rules and you should receive the appropriate penalty. Being in a title fight doesn’t and shouldn’t impact that. For the spectator it would be a shame, sure, but stewards and race officials can’t make decisions based upon that.

There are of course a variety of factors to consider. You could be pedantic about a whole host of things. Silverstone was faster, more dangerous. Max was potentially deliberate (not even in question for Lewis), was far wider, and a collision which could still have been dangerous only avoided because of the sensibility of Lewis. Some go one way, some the other.

I also disagree you can’t consider it retrospectively. If a mistake is made it should be looked at. I agree if there is nothing new, it creates an awkward precedent. But the stewards didn’t have the onboard and telemetry to sync at the time. Now they do, it should at least be evaluated.

On the penalty itself, I’m struggling on why this should be a 5s time penalty whereas Lewis effectively got what amounts to a 20-30s penalty if not more. Not to mention his advance was then also prohibited by having to overtake as a result of the penalty. I don’t think the two are proportionate to the incidents. If you set that precedent with Hamilton then you should apply it to Max.

For me, a grid penalty at the next race is the most effective way of correcting this. Something like a 5 place penalty. It’s at the start of the race so it’s not like it’s punishing him directly by losing those places, it gives the chance for him to make them up - just like if he received a penalty during the race and was then having to overtake to get back to second.
Click to expand...
All fair points. I tend to agree.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
I agree if you break the rules you should get a penalty, that's what the stewards are for. I just don't think Max should be made to pay for the stewards messing up. Which is exactly what you'd achieve if a retrospective 5s penalty is handed out. It would be unfair punishment. I'm not saying retrospective action should be completely off the table, I'm saying if any retrospective punishment is necessary it should be dealt with the next race. If punishment is necessary a grid penalty the next race would be the fairest option So we agree on that bit.

How did Lewis get a 20-30+ second penalty in your mind? A 10 second stop and go is exactly that right? You pit but your team has to wait 10 seconds before working on the car. It would only amount to 30s if you get the penalty in your out lap right after pitting or something as you then don't really have anything to gain from the pit stop. But since you don't have to stop right away that never happens. Considering his move was more dangerous due to the extremely high speeds and Hamilton actually taking out Max (causing a collision) it makes sense that he would be given a bigger penalty. I'm not sure if you want to factor in the damage you've caused to the opposition with your error, in this case Lewis being held up for 11 laps. If you want to do that consistently, it would have meant the only proportionate penalty for Lewis at Silverstone would have been a DSQ. Not sure that's the way to go.
Click to expand...

My mistake, apologies - I thought he took an extra pit stop because of the penalty.

When you say Hamilton took Verstappen out, it seems like we are trending back to hyperbole / strawman arguments here. Just to be clear, in Silverstone, Hamilton missed the apex (by a couple feet), Verstappen was not willing to give more than a little bit of extra room, and so they collided and Max went off. In Brazil, Max missed the apex by many many feet and ran wide well off the track, Hamilton instead of continuing on his trajectory, sensibly ran wide with him to avoid the collision, hence they did not crash.

Therefore I really do think any objective person cannot suggest that the fact they collided or the fact there was damage should be considered a factor (in this circumstance). What you’re saying there, is because Hamilton was sensible and they did not crash, he should be double punished because by being sensible you’re now saying the penalty on Max should be reduced as a result. So what, Max benefits because Lewis was sensible? If you hand on heart can’t understand why that is simply not correct, then we can be done with this discussion.

I personally think what Max did was worse. Potentially deliberate, even if it wasn’t he simply knew he would never make the apex there, and even if he thought he could he missed it so significantly that it endangered himself and Lewis. I know we will never agree on that, but to my mind it is incredibly shady the difference in how the two incidents were dealt with by the stewards. And I’m yet to see one truly rational reason as to why. So really I’m not even most annoyed with Max although it was very dickish, I’m mostly just annoyed with the stewards who, if they acted appropriately, would very quickly eliminate that type of racing from Max. And actually that’d be to Max’s betterment in the long run.
 
Last edited:
rpitroda said:
My mistake, apologies - I thought he took an extra pit stop because of the penalty.

When you say Hamilton took Verstappen out, it seems like we are trending back to hyperbole / strawman arguments here. Just to be clear, in Silverstone, Hamilton missed the apex (by a couple feet), Verstappen was not willing to give more than a little bit of extra room, and so they collided and Max went off. In Brazil, Max missed the apex by many many feet and ran wide well off the track, Hamilton instead of continuing on his trajectory, sensibly ran wide with him to avoid the collision, hence they did not crash.

Therefore I really do think any objective person cannot suggest that the fact they collided or the fact there was damage should be considered a factor (in this circumstance). What you’re saying there, is because Hamilton was sensible and they did not crash, he should be double punished because by being sensible you’re now saying the penalty on Max should be reduced as a result. So what, Max benefits because Lewis was sensible? If you hand on heart can’t understand why that is simply not correct, then we can be done with this discussion.

I personally think what Max did was worse. Potentially deliberate, even if it wasn’t he simply knew he would never make the apex there, and even if he thought he could he missed it so significantly that it endangered himself and Lewis. I know we will never agree on that, but to my mind it is incredibly shady the difference in how the two incidents were dealt with by the stewards. And I’m yet to see one truly rational reason as to why. So really I’m not even most annoyed with Max although it was very dickish, I’m mostly just annoyed with the stewards who, if they acted appropriately, would very quickly eliminate that type of racing from Max. And actually that’d be to Max’s betterment in the long run.
Click to expand...

that’s not very f1 of you. double down on it. tell everyone else it was just hard debating and fits under the credos of “let them argue.”
 
rpitroda said:
My mistake, apologies - I thought he took an extra pit stop because of the penalty.

When you say Hamilton took Verstappen out, it seems like we are trending back to hyperbole / strawman arguments here. Just to be clear, in Silverstone, Hamilton missed the apex (by a couple feet), Verstappen was not willing to give more than a little bit of extra room, and so they collided and Max went off. In Brazil, Max missed the apex by many many feet and ran wide well off the track, Hamilton instead of continuing on his trajectory, sensibly ran wide with him to avoid the collision, hence they did not crash.

Therefore I really do think any objective person cannot suggest that the fact they collided or the fact there was damage should be considered a factor (in this circumstance). What you’re saying there, is because Hamilton was sensible and they did not crash, he should be double punished because by being sensible you’re now saying the penalty on Max should be reduced as a result. So what, Max benefits because Lewis was sensible? If you hand on heart can’t understand why that is simply not correct, then we can be done with this discussion.

I personally think what Max did was worse. Potentially deliberate, even if it wasn’t he simply knew he would never make the apex there, and even if he thought he could he missed it so significantly that it endangered himself and Lewis. I know we will never agree on that, but to my mind it is incredibly shady the difference in how the two incidents were dealt with by the stewards. And I’m yet to see one truly rational reason as to why. So really I’m not even most annoyed with Max although it was very dickish, I’m mostly just annoyed with the stewards who, if they acted appropriately, would very quickly eliminate that type of racing from Max. And actually that’d be to Max’s betterment in the long run.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Lewis took Max out deliberately, I don't think that at all, but it was Lewis' mistake (according to the stewards) that resulted in Max flying into the wall at high speed. I agree Max missed the apex by a lot more but luckily it's a relatively slow corner which allowed Hamilton to spot Max missing the corner and react accordingly. You're right they would have crashed if he hadn't reacted. I'm not saying Lewis should be double punished at all because we've already established the stewards messed that up. They could have told Max to give Lewis the position so Lewis could be on his way (standard for leaving the track and gaining an advantage) and/or given Max a time penalty during the race (for forcing another driver off the track). I do think stewards look at the incidents differently though, as one is causing a collision and the other is forcing someone off the track. No idea whether the penalty is or should be the same.

One thing though, I think it would be better if we skipped the deliberate or not bit and leave that to the stewards. Of course Lewis and his fans are going to say what Max did was deliberate. Just as Max said what Lewis did at Silverstone was deliberate. They just want to see the other get a penalty.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
Pause at 0:47. He's already past the apex and he's still on the brakes and turning in. He's obviously braked too late in order to try and outbrake but failed, missing the corner and pushing off Lewis as a result. Stewards should have told Max to give Lewis the position but they fecked up and said no investigation necessary. That's the big thing here. The question isn't whether or not Max pushed Lewis off, because it's obvious that's what happened (though I think it's ridiculous to say he was trying to crash into Lewis, if that's what he wanted to do he wouldn't have turned in at all and just locked up his brakes and went "oops" :lol:). The big question is what would be a fair way to handle this as the stewards fecked up by saying no investigation necessary to Max didn't bother to try and keep a certain amount of time between him and Bottas. If they had said we'll investigate after the race it would be a different matter entirely.



What Rosberg does there is worse and there's no question it's deliberate. You can clearly see he's not turning in at all, unlike Max. Did Rosberg get a retrospective 5s penalty for that after stewards said no investigation necesssary then? Or are you just trying to wind people up?
Click to expand...

Great assessment.
I have looked at lots of the video's posted since the GP. And as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing to support the stewards stupid decision.
As bad as anything I have seen. And one without any logic at all.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
I'm not saying Lewis took Max out deliberately, I don't think that at all, but it was Lewis' mistake (according to the stewards) that resulted in Max flying into the wall at high speed. I agree Max missed the apex by a lot more but luckily it's a relatively slow corner which allowed Hamilton to spot Max missing the corner and react accordingly. You're right they would have crashed if he hadn't reacted. I'm not saying Lewis should be double punished at all because we've already established the stewards messed that up. They could have told Max to give Lewis the position so Lewis could be on his way (standard for leaving the track and gaining an advantage) and/or given Max a time penalty during the race (for forcing another driver off the track). I do think stewards look at the incidents differently though, as one is causing a collision and the other is forcing someone off the track. No idea whether the penalty is or should be the same.

One thing though, I think it would be better if we skipped the deliberate or not bit and leave that to the stewards. Of course Lewis and his fans are going to say what Max did was deliberate. Just as Max said what Lewis did at Silverstone was deliberate. They just want to see the other get a penalty.
Click to expand...

Fair on the deliberate or not point. I also don’t think it’s hugely relevant anyway, so agree, let’s move on.

I think I generally agree with your post on the whole. The only part I struggle with is the bit in bold. Only reason being, in a rather odd way, the reason one ended in a collision and one didn’t was primarily because the one being wronged in the first place made the decision to avoid the collision. In other words, the collision wasn’t avoided because Max did something better or more legal in Brazil vs Lewis in Silverstone, it was because the one wronged took action to avoid it themselves. This is why I think the collision point should be moot in this instance.
 
rpitroda said:
Fair on the deliberate or not point. I also don’t think it’s hugely relevant anyway, so agree, let’s move on.

I think I generally agree with your post on the whole. The only part I struggle with is the bit in bold. Only reason being, in a rather odd way, the reason one ended in a collision and one didn’t was primarily because the one being wronged in the first place made the decision to avoid the collision. In other words, the collision wasn’t avoided because Max did something better or more legal in Brazil vs Lewis in Silverstone, it was because the one wronged took action to avoid it themselves. This is why I think the collision point should be moot in this instance.
Click to expand...
I think that's the point Arjen is trying to make though.

The stewards see it that no contact was made - but they're ignoring the reason there was no contact. If Hamilton turned into the corner like normal and collided with Verstappen, they'd HAVE to give him a penalty (and probably would have).

The fact that Hamilton swerved to avoid the contact shouldn't be important.

I also agree with Arjen that the stewards should have demanded to give the place back to Hamilton. That would have solved all the problems and allowed them to keep racing fairly.

Instead they've now made a big mess for themselves and may be forced into giving Verstappen a penalty that he can no longer do anything about. It's really poor officiating.

Pretty much in every example in the past, if you force somebody off the track when defending/make a mistake yourself and run off but keep the place - it's seen as gaining an advantage. I really don't know what they were thinking. This excuse of not having the correct camera angles either? pull the other one :lol: if these guys can't tell what happened from the overhead footage alone they shouldn't be stewarding!
 
Adam-Utd said:
I think that's the point Arjen is trying to make though.

The stewards see it that no contact was made - but they're ignoring the reason there was no contact. If Hamilton turned into the corner like normal and collided with Verstappen, they'd HAVE to give him a penalty (and probably would have).

The fact that Hamilton swerved to avoid the contact shouldn't be important.

I also agree with Arjen that the stewards should have demanded to give the place back to Hamilton. That would have solved all the problems and allowed them to keep racing fairly.

Instead they've now made a big mess for themselves and may be forced into giving Verstappen a penalty that he can no longer do anything about. It's really poor officiating.

Pretty much in every example in the past, if you force somebody off the track when defending/make a mistake yourself and run off but keep the place - it's seen as gaining an advantage. I really don't know what they were thinking. This excuse of not having the correct camera angles either? pull the other one :lol: if these guys can't tell what happened from the overhead footage alone they shouldn't be stewarding!
Click to expand...
Yeap, it's a mess. Questions should be asked of the stewards in my opinion.
 
Interesting analysis on how much the DRS wing discrepancy on Hamilton’s car might’ve helped his lap time by Mark Huges & Giorgio Formula 1:

But this theory of Red Bull’s is not directly connected to the DRS discrepancy which got Hamilton thrown to the back of the sprint grid. That was because the DRS gap was found to be 0.2mm wider than the regulation 85mm at the right-hand extremity of the gap. Any effect of this on lap time would barely be measurable so goes no way to explaining Hamilton’s huge qualifying advantage.
If the DRS is worth around 0.5s of lap time at 85mm, then at 85.2 (even if the 0.2mm was uniform across the width, which it wasn’t) it would theoretically be worth 0.5001s, i.e. an extra 0.001s over a full legal lap.
Click to expand...

At the time it was reported I totally agreed with the DSQ; if you’re out with the legal parameters then it’s fair game. It has to be black & white.

But the fact only part of the wing was a tiny bit out does make it seem more it was damage-related.

Ultimately didn’t matter I guess, but I’d rather seen on track battles decide this title than penalties & stewarding decisions.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
Yeap, it's a mess. Questions should be asked of the stewards in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't know why, it feels they're using a different ruleset for both Hamilton/Verstappen. I just want a fair championship fight with the rules applied properly. Whoever wins should deserve it on merit.


Wicked_Badger said:
Interesting analysis on how much the DRS wing discrepancy on Hamilton’s car might’ve helped his lap time by Mark Huges & Giorgio Formula 1:



At the time it was reported I totally agreed with the DSQ; if you’re out with the legal parameters then it’s fair game. It has to be black & white.

But the fact only part of the wing was a tiny bit out does make it seem more it was damage-related.

Ultimately didn’t matter I guess, but I’d rather seen on track battles decide this title than penalties & stewarding decisions.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter what the advantage was, it's against the rules. You have to put the line somewhere, it is what it is. Similar to how Vettel got kicked out for not having enough fuel left in the system for them to test.
 


Shaping up to be an interesting gp

Will be interesting to see how the tyres hold up... and especially if like the video says you get a bit of dew on the track at twighlight... (on shot to pieces tyres with high speed corners!)
 
Pirelli has chosen the three hardest tyre compounds in its range for this week's inaugural Qatar Grand Prix at Losail.

The Italian tyre manufacturer says its existing data and simulations point to Losail being a high-severity circuit with very demanding corners – similar to Silverstone or Mugello – and quite aggressive asphalt, hence its hard rubber choice.

Pirelli warns that grip levels at the Losail International Circuit could be impacted by the sand from the desert surrounding the track. But with no support races on the weekend's programme, the track will also likely take time to 'rubber in' for drivers.

Furthermore, as one of four races held under the floodlights this year, the track temperature evolution between sessions and in the race itself on Sunday should be quite different to standard races.

Losail's 5.38 km layout features 16 corners and a main straight just over a kilometre long.


"Qatar will provide a thrilling new challenge at a unique venue with its own special character, so we're very much looking forward to our first visit," commented Pirelli F1 boss Mario Isola.

"Coming to a new circuit isn't a novel experience for us though, and we rely on simulation data as well as track information that we collect in advance to select the nomination that will be used.

"We haven't had the chance to measure the roughness of the asphalt with our instruments but the promoter provided us with very useful information on the asphalt characteristics.

"From what we can see, the hardest tyres in the range will be well-suited to Losail, due to the quite abrasive asphalt and the very demanding corners.

"But as we've never actually raced there before, we'll only get a true picture of how the tyres really work on this circuit once we arrive."

While teams have never run at Losail, Red Bull's Sergio Perez and Nikita Mazepin are the only drivers in the field who are familiar with the venue, with the Red Bull driver winning in Qatar in 2009 a round of the GP2 Asia series, while the Russian once raced at Losail in a round of the MRF Challenge.
 
Adam-Utd said:
I don't know why, it feels they're using a different ruleset for both Hamilton/Verstappen. I just want a fair championship fight with the rules applied properly. Whoever wins should deserve it on merit.



It doesn't really matter what the advantage was, it's against the rules. You have to put the line somewhere, it is what it is. Similar to how Vettel got kicked out for not having enough fuel left in the system for them to test.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a Hamilton/Verstappen thing. They've made some weird calls all around. But I it's definitely not been the best season for the stewards.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
I'm not saying Lewis took Max out deliberately, I don't think that at all, but it was Lewis' mistake (according to the stewards) that resulted in Max flying into the wall at high speed. I agree Max missed the apex by a lot more but luckily it's a relatively slow corner which allowed Hamilton to spot Max missing the corner and react accordingly. You're right they would have crashed if he hadn't reacted. I'm not saying Lewis should be double punished at all because we've already established the stewards messed that up. They could have told Max to give Lewis the position so Lewis could be on his way (standard for leaving the track and gaining an advantage) and/or given Max a time penalty during the race (for forcing another driver off the track). I do think stewards look at the incidents differently though, as one is causing a collision and the other is forcing someone off the track. No idea whether the penalty is or should be the same.

One thing though, I think it would be better if we skipped the deliberate or not bit and leave that to the stewards. Of course Lewis and his fans are going to say what Max did was deliberate. Just as Max said what Lewis did at Silverstone was deliberate. They just want to see the other get a penalty.
Click to expand...
Could Max have turned the wheel further to make the corner? Yes.
Should Max have turned the wheel more to make the corner? Yes.
You can't accidentally forget to turn your steering wheel.
Not turning the steering wheel was a deliberate act.
 
The steering is 1/3 of it. Its all in the braking. He overshot to push Lewis off.
 
They're likely going to delay making a call until the last minutes before announcing they can't do anything as the stewards made a call just before qualifying and hope the cars on the track take the focus off.
 
Dargonk said:
They're likely going to delay making a call until the last minutes before announcing they can't do anything as the stewards made a call just before qualifying and hope the cars on the track take the focus off.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they'll just tell the stewards to come down hard if he puts a foot wrong this weekend? I do think he needs something more than a telling off or he'll just keep doing it.
 
senorgregster said:
Perhaps they'll just tell the stewards to come down hard if he puts a foot wrong this weekend? I do think he needs something more than a telling off or he'll just keep doing it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that would help them though. If he gets punished for the same thing after they have just cleared him, it would just highlight the inconsistency even further.
 
Dargonk said:
I'm not sure that would help them though. If he gets punished for the same thing after they have just cleared him, it would just highlight the inconsistency even further.
Click to expand...
But if they consistently decide like last weekend I'm not sure there'll be a F1 much longer.
 
Abizzz said:
But if they consistently decide like last weekend I'm not sure there'll be a F1 much longer.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? It was great for the business of F1, not so great for the sport. I prefer Max to Lewis (but not really a fan of either). That should have been a penalty but F1 has got so much more press due to it not being one.
 
NM said:
Are you kidding? It was great for the business of F1, not so great for the sport. I prefer Max to Lewis (but not really a fan of either). That should have been a penalty but F1 has got so much more press due to it not being one.
Click to expand...
Yeah but how many drivers of the 20 can actually get out of the way like Lewis did and how many corners have run off areas the size of mall parking lots? Driving others off the track isn't punished because it's poor racing, it's punished because it's destructive.
 
Abizzz said:
Yeah but how many drivers of the 20 can actually get out of the way like Lewis did and how many corners have run off areas the size of mall parking lots? Driving others off the track isn't punished because it's poor racing, it's punished because it's destructive.
Click to expand...
It's exactly what Senna, Schumacher et all would have done.. I've seen championships decided by collisions, and most of the 20 would have been able to back out easily
 
Just because it’s been done in the past doesn’t make it right. Schumacher as good as he was still stained his legacy with dumb moves he didn’t need to make.

It’s pretty simple stuff, like any sport, if you don’t punish they will continue to do it. Max has needed his wings clipping for a very long time, you can’t overtake this guy without incident.
 
F1 needs to add gravel traps back into the circuits and this sort of behaviour will lessen. Would max have gone in so late in the brakes and with such an acute steering angle if he had know turn 4 had gravel? Lewis would have also had to be more careful on that same move as he wouldnt want to beach his car under the same scenario with a gravel trap.
 
dinostar77 said:
F1 needs to add gravel traps back into the circuits and this sort of behaviour will lessen. Would max have gone in so late in the brakes and with such an acute steering angle if he had know turn 4 had gravel? Lewis would have also had to be more careful on that same move as he wouldnt want to beach his car under the same scenario with a gravel trap.
Click to expand...

i think with that we’d be back to pit stop strategy and drs straights being the only viable overtake options.
 
dinostar77 said:
F1 needs to add gravel traps back into the circuits and this sort of behaviour will lessen. Would max have gone in so late in the brakes and with such an acute steering angle if he had know turn 4 had gravel? Lewis would have also had to be more careful on that same move as he wouldnt want to beach his car under the same scenario with a gravel trap.
Click to expand...
Gravel traps are dangerous and will rightly not be reintroduced. Especially on higher speed corners.
 
Gringo said:
The steering is 1/3 of it. Its all in the braking. He overshot to push Lewis off.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They need to look at his telemetry to see what he was doing with the brake pedal too, how it compared to the other laps. I'd bet money he braked to push Lewis wide, misjudged it and went too deep.

Rado_N said:
Gravel traps are dangerous and will rightly not be reintroduced. Especially on higher speed corners.
Click to expand...

Not gravel traps but they need to penalise drivers in the same way, go off the circuit doing something stupid and expect a penalty. That was what they originally said when they started introducing these run offs everywhere.
 
"He's not driven Lewis off track on purpose but he still drove him off the circuit so personally I feel he should have been told to let him pass in that race."

But Button adds: "It's a shame that they didn't just take care of it at the track because we shouldn't be talking about this here.

"He should have got a penalty...."

As usual, Jenson Button is bang on.
 
Buster15 said:
"He's not driven Lewis off track on purpose but he still drove him off the circuit so personally I feel he should have been told to let him pass in that race."

But Button adds: "It's a shame that they didn't just take care of it at the track because we shouldn't be talking about this here.

"He should have got a penalty...."

As usual, Jenson Button is bang on.
Click to expand...
I agree with Jenson.
Part of me thinks its done , Lewis won just let it go. but then again if there is no penalty , Max with think its OK to do it again and other drivers will say well Max did it.
What penalty those, in the race it should've been 5 seconds, for the next race, lets them do qualifying the add 5 seconds to that time or a grid drop, I have no idea.
 
Buster15 said:
"He's not driven Lewis off track on purpose but he still drove him off the circuit so personally I feel he should have been told to let him pass in that race."

But Button adds: "It's a shame that they didn't just take care of it at the track because we shouldn't be talking about this here.

"He should have got a penalty...."

As usual, Jenson Button is bang on.
Click to expand...
Pretty much all that needs to be said. The stewards have made a big mess of it.

Nobody needed extra footage or data to see what was plainly obvious - they've just bottled the decision trying not to effect the title fight instead of refereeing the race properly.
 
For me, since Max gained an advantage by going off track, the FIA should've asked him to hand over the position to Lewis. Since they decided to do nothing, it's tricky to come back and penalise Max retrospectively. How do you assess what is a fair penalty? A grid pen? Retrospective 5 seconds? Even, if you think Max deserves a penalty, the fact that the FIA didn't intervene has major repercussions.

After Lewis passed Max, the latter cruised to the finish, with his gap to Bottas going from 10 to 3 seconds. Obviously a penalty would impact the result, but then is it fair and in the spirit of the sport to penalise someone so late after the fact, especially when certain decisions were made (like Max cruising to the finish) based on the fact the FIA said there would be no action. Furthermore, now you have drivers like Leclerc, who've come out and said they would race differently, based on how the FIA judged the Brazilian GP. This is bad precedent the FIA have set, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see some outrageous driving towards the backend of the season.

Personally, I would rather the FIA move on from this situation with no penalty, but add more clarification to the sporting regulations. A lot of the decisions are at the discretion of stewards, which just allows for too many subjective takes. I'm convinced they allow for more leniency with drivers that are competing for the win, as opposed to those in the midfield. Tsunoda's penalty at the Brazilian GP is probably the best example of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.