United Hobbit
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 10,088
CH just called out Perez a bit there?
So are McLaren unfortunately. Stella, Brown and Norris are all regularly acting like cnuts this season. Hardly any likeable teams left tbh. Maybe Williams?RB are so unlikable
So are McLaren unfortunately. Stella, Brown and Norris are all regularly acting like cnuts this season. Hardly any likeable teams left tbh. Maybe Williams?
AgreedFerrari as a team are quite likeable. They dont have a Toto, a Horner or a Zak Brown so they win easily.
Russell was comfortably inside track limits and yet was penalized.Think the difference was Max was the defending car in that corner whereas George was overtaking and I have tried watching it back but its not entirely clear to me whether George was actually ahead at the apex. Looked very close. Shouldn't really matter that much in my opinion but according to the rules it does. Thought at the time the Russell penalty was very soft anyway and still do. Should be overturned.
Russell asking if max got a penalty for forcing lando off the track
That's why I asked whether Russell was actually ahead at the apex, because if he was then by the rules it would be his corner and he shouldn't have been penalized. If he wasn't, then by the rules the penalty is correct. Though I don't really like these rules because it severely inhibits racing.Russell was comfortably inside track limits and yet was penalized.
Verstappen brakes later and doesn't make the corner, that's the biggest issue for me.
For me, he is exactly as far alongside at the apex as Verstappen was with Norris by braking later than the other car. He makes the corner comfortably while Verstappen doesn't, and still Russell is the one who gets a penalty.That's why I asked whether Russell was actually ahead at the apex, because if he was then by the rules it would be his corner and he shouldn't have been penalized. If he wasn't, then by the rules the penalty is correct. Though I don't really like these rules because it severely inhibits racing.
Fri 25th Oct | Start | |
---|---|---|
Practice 1 | 7:30pm | |
Practice 2 | 11:00pm |
Sat 26th Oct | Start | |
---|---|---|
Practice 3 | 6:30pm | |
Qualifying | 10:00pm |
Sun 27th Oct | Start | |
---|---|---|
Grand Prix | 8:00pm |
Was it Austria? Can't recall either.It's not what people want to hear on but with the rules the penalties given where correct.
The rules where also agreed with input from the drivers/GDPA.
Also can't remember what race it was but there was also a race earlier this season when Norris forced Max off making Max overtake outside track limits and Max was made to hand the place back despite being forced wide.
A problem is that it isn't really applied consistently and/or the rules are too complex. For example, Sainz did to Max what Russell did to Bottas (think it was lap 1 or 2) except Max kept in front after going off. That wasn't investigated. Was that then because he didn't complete the overtake? He didn't gain from pushing someone off whereas Russell did? I don't know. There's so many of these situations, often several per race, and for me it often feels like a lottery whether there will be a penalty or not.Was it Austria? Can't recall either.
But yes you are correct. Because Max is involved it almost naturally gets blown out of proportion. Max is brilliant in the sense that he knows exactly where to push the envelope of the rules in existence. If you read into his comms right after it it makes it sound like what he did was calculated and that he knew the benefit in that situation would be his. We can argue about steward inconsistency all day long like we can with anything human subjectivity based in all sports - but they did appear to apply it by the letter in this case.
That people don't like it because they don't like the driver benefitting is irrelevant. I've seen some people instead focus their efforts on criticizing the rules, and that is the only thing that should be at question if you have issue with that happened. Top drivers know exactly how to push the envelope and it's a challenge for a FIA to determine how far they go into curbing that or not. As others have mentioned elsewhere - at some pt you risk making racing too sterile.
Imagine if one or both drivers would have ended up stuck in gravel there like was the play in some many track battles of the past. People would truly be screaming bloody murder. Many of those same people who say now that gravel is the answer.
Imagine if one or both drivers would have ended up stuck in gravel there like was the play in some many track battles of the past. People would truly be screaming bloody murder. Many of those same people who say now that gravel is the answer.
I really want Ferrari to win the constructors and Norris to get the championship for something different but I really dislike red bull and I also have no time for Mcclaren since they had trump in their garage.Think there is a decent chance that Ferrari get constructor's title and Max gets the championship leaving McLaren with nothing.
No argument from me there. If the rules aren't applied consistently especially when the letter is followed and the other time it's not - it's not really a rule.A problem is that it isn't really applied consistently and/or the rules are too complex. For example, Sainz did to Max what Russell did to Bottas (think it was lap 1 or 2) except Max kept in front after going off. That wasn't investigated. Was that then because he didn't complete the overtake? He didn't gain from pushing someone off whereas Russell did? I don't know. There's so many of these situations, often several per race, and for me it often feels like a lottery whether there will be a penalty or not.
It's not what people want to hear on but with the rules the penalties given where correct.
The rules where also agreed with input from the drivers/GDPA.
Also can't remember what race it was but there was also a race earlier this season when Norris forced Max off making Max overtake outside track limits and Max was made to hand the place back despite being forced wide.
I wouldnt be. It doesn't matter if you're defending or attacking, if you end up on the outside of a very acute corner/hairpin, like turn 1 and 12 in COTA, turn 3 and 4 in Austria etc, then you have to expect to be forced to back out. And if you dont submit, into the gravel you go. That's just racing. They have to do better to not be on the outside.
If people dont like that, petition the FIA to stop making F1 cars so stupidly long and wide.
You're a maniac!OK so the discussion about gravel has made me think the question "is f1 now almost too sterile?"
Obviously disclaimer we do NOT want people to die!!
But Austin was the first time we had an sc in something like 9 races
They were a regular thing in the 90s
Are the drivers way better? The cars easier to drive? Too many sterile tracks with run offs not gravel? Something else?
Again I don't want people to die before anyone thinks that!!
It kind of is too sterile these days but im not sure what all can be done to truly address that since most involve either an increased safety risk or go counter to their sustainability.OK so the discussion about gravel has made me think the question "is f1 now almost too sterile?"
Obviously disclaimer we do NOT want people to die!!
But Austin was the first time we had an sc in something like 9 races
They were a regular thing in the 90s
Are the drivers way better? The cars easier to drive? Too many sterile tracks with run offs not gravel? Something else?
Again I don't want people to die before anyone thinks that!!
OK so the discussion about gravel has made me think the question "is f1 now almost too sterile?"
Obviously disclaimer we do NOT want people to die!!
But Austin was the first time we had an sc in something like 9 races
They were a regular thing in the 90s
Are the drivers way better? The cars easier to drive? Too many sterile tracks with run offs not gravel? Something else?
Again I don't want people to die before anyone thinks that!!
Don't forget the cost cap which also means drivers take fewer risksAll of the above.
Parts are too standardised which massively improves reliability. The majority of tracks have been sterilised with tarmac run offs. The cars are too big and clunky which means drivers take far fewer risks generally. Because the tyres are so shit they're almost never pushing flat out in races anyway, which also goes back to why reliability is so good.
The vast majority of overtakes in F1 are DRS-controlled, risk-free and happen before the braking zones, and while that's the case F1 will never have genuinely exciting races, where the drama isnt being engineered through controversy. The section of corners after turn 12 in Austin is almost unique in the calendar as somewhere 2 cars can race side by side without one having DRS open.
there was a post on reddit f1 which was upvoted alot. it was a youtube video of fernando alonso suggesting what the rules of engagement for racing in F1 should be. popular suggestion. shame i cant find the video url now.I just caught up with Missed Apex's race review and their driving expert was scathing of Max and the stewards. He's not a fan of the new overtaking regulations, but he also pointed out its in the regulations the protection for the defending car only applies if that car keeps itself on the track, specifically the defending car "must be capable of making the corner while remaining within the limits of the track".
What this means is that all protections for Max of "he was ahead at the apex" literally does not apply as per the regulations. This means it becomes either a racing incident OR, more likely, a simple case of forcing a car off the track.
Ironically every time Max does something it becomes so hotly contested Liberty Media and the track directors must be loving all the media engagement it drives. Probably generates way more money for them than he takes home.
IndeedThey know it's controversy that drives all engagement now, not the racing
They know it's controversy that drives all engagement now, not the racing.