2023 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[dialtone]

[...] Hamilton’s move was so extreme that I would want to see telemetry of his speed there vs next lap because I think Stewards basically saw that he passed Norris because he had no intention of making the corner.

I’m not saying he wasn’t going to make it but his speed was high and he just went straight very quickly after George allegedly pushed him.

If you check the far offboard replay which was posted here as a gif you can see that Hamilton seemingly had no overspeed relative to Russell from a certain point onwards, he was very likely capable of making the corner whilst already having completed the overtake on Norris.

Arguably the precedent for this move being perfectly fine was Lewis' own team mate in Spain (highlight vid as a refresher if needed)

That was Russell's position relative to Piastri, the only explanation of why Russell did not have to give the position back is that it was deemed he had completed the overtake:


He bailed before he was actually ran out of road, a bit before the halfway point between apexes:


He then went around the bollard and kept the position ahead of Piastri.

And now for comparison:

I'm relatively certain Norris has no part of his car alongside of Lewis from this point onward, if Russell was deemed to have completed the overtake on Piastri in Spain, then this is certainly the case here.

From the gif mentioned above: a few frames in which Hamilton's position to Russell doesn't change significantly, the logical conclusion is that he has shed any extra speed and is not going significantly faster than Russell, if at all.

The consequence of that is that he would have been fully capable of making the corner if given the space.

He then bails before he is actually ran out of road, a bit before the halfway point between apexes:


He absolutely had to give the position back to Russell, of course - Norris? Not so sure, but definitely not if the FIA/stewards/race control were consistent.

As pointed out by someone else, Lewis was 30kph faster than his following lap. FIA probably decided any passing he did was of the open lobby type and asked him to return the positions.

Anyway this didn’t impact race results ultimately given Merc decided to pull in both drivers for mediums.

[j_ste]

He never realistically got close enough to make a move on Russell, if he did he would have gone for it.

Ringo is right. Russell cooked his rear tyres the last 3 laps he was all over the place. Hamilton was better on traction and was taking tighter line. You could see this at the end of lap 60 when Russell put an attack on Norris, Lewis was all over Russell in the S3 because George had probably overheat his rear tyres and had a little look on the inside at the last corner. After that on lap 51 Lewis as consistently having a look at the inside and taking tighter lines.

What's weird for me is that it's 109 pts to 180. Russell had blunder, when it mattered (we could say it didn't matter in Canada), the team lost 22 points to Ferrari, but there's not real criticism from the team (logical, but some TP would throw him under the bus), the media, and overall general opinion. Russell PR gave him an immunity these days it seems

But overall I just think we disagree since yersteday because we have a different appreciation of each driver

Yes, he was all over him for a few corners but he never came close enough to make a pass attempt.

Its one thing taking a chance around Singapore and a completely different thing taking a chance on your teammate around singapore.

[RZS10]

[...]
As pointed out by someone else, Lewis was 30kph faster than his following lap. FIA probably decided any passing he did was of the open lobby type and asked him to return the positions.

Anyway this didn’t impact race results ultimately given Merc decided to pull in both drivers for mediums.

Which speed he had earlier in the braking phase should not matter when he clearly managed to slow it down to a similar speed to Russell, just look at his onboard:


The distance between their cars stays similar for a bit, which shows he did not carry any excess speed once next to Russell, he could have made that corner, there was nothing "open lobby" about it.

Another thing to look at is the Aston behind, the distance between HAM and Nando stays roughly the same until HAM bails, Nando easily makes the corner on that outside line (see gif earlier).

To just use the speed before the late braking as an argument is a bit too simplistic imho ...

edit: another thought: some of the difference in speed (if it actually was 30kph) could have partially come from how the corner is usually taken: compromising the first two and thus opening up the following left hander - taking the corner like he did on lap one would heavily compromise the line through that whole complex and all the way to T5, something worth doing if it means gaining positions on lap1.

But i do agree, ultimately it probably made no difference, as even the double stack during the SC would have thrown Lewis behind others, long before the switch to M under VSC.

p.s.: is that data available anywhere? i mean the 30kph delta to his L2 ... f1 tempo doesn't have the first laps for Lewis

It wasnt even the stewards choice to give the place back. The team did. The outcome of the stewards investigation was no further action.

The team was advised to do the swap which then yielded the "no further action" as the positions were reversed. It was a direct consequence.

[...] the FIA/stewards don't have clips of prior races at hand to compare in an instant. What I detest is how the FIA won't cooperate with teams and inform them wether a driver needs to concede the position or not. No, they would rather keep quiet, let the teams interpret it and then give the driver a penalty, it's so petty and pathetic it's comical.

They do have a database/catalogue, which is why they refer to prior incidents in their decision docs, even for decisions made during the race.

Fully agree with the last part - the switch to this solution post '21 was just straight up dumb - just telling them to swap places was much smoother and simpler.

[dans79]

It wasnt even the stewards choice to give the place back. The team did. The outcome of the stewards investigation was no further action.

The team was advised to do the swap which then yielded the "no further action" as the positions were reversed. It was a direct consequence.

TK mentioned this during the broadcast didn't he?

[mwillems]

[...] Hamilton’s move was so extreme that I would want to see telemetry of his speed there vs next lap because I think Stewards basically saw that he passed Norris because he had no intention of making the corner.

I’m not saying he wasn’t going to make it but his speed was high and he just went straight very quickly after George allegedly pushed him.

If you check the far offboard replay which was posted here as a gif you can see that Hamilton seemingly had no overspeed relative to Russell from a certain point onwards, he was very likely capable of making the corner whilst already having completed the overtake on Norris.

Arguably the precedent for this move being perfectly fine was Lewis' own team mate in Spain (highlight vid as a refresher if needed)

That was Russell's position relative to Piastri, the only explanation of why Russell did not have to give the position back is that it was deemed he had completed the overtake:
https://i.imgur.com/g0WolyE.png

He bailed before he was actually ran out of road, a bit before the halfway point between apexes:
https://i.imgur.com/9UdTAGF.png

He then went around the bollard and kept the position ahead of Piastri.

And now for comparison:
https://i.imgur.com/3W1YyZq.png
I'm relatively certain Norris has no part of his car alongside of Lewis from this point onward, if Russell was deemed to have completed the overtake on Piastri in Spain, then this is certainly the case here.

From the gif mentioned above: a few frames in which Hamilton's position to Russell doesn't change significantly, the logical conclusion is that he has shed any extra speed and is not going significantly faster than Russell, if at all.
https://i.imgur.com/snFpBij.gif
The consequence of that is that he would have been fully capable of making the corner if given the space.

He then bails before he is actually ran out of road, a bit before the halfway point between apexes:
https://i.imgur.com/zMUfqXR.png

He absolutely had to give the position back to Russell, of course - Norris? Not so sure, but definitely not if the FIA/stewards/race control were consistent.

Fantastic presentation! We are having the same discussion in the Mclaren thread (Although I am doing a much poorer job of presenting it than you) and as you might suspect across there it is more cut and dry in Landos favour and there is some frustration that I am questioning it still But the question I have been trying to ask is what determines when an overtake is complete?

What is the rule or precedent for this?

The only sensible suggestion put forth was that in making the overtake he was only able to enter a disappearing wedge or not be able to slot into the race without going off track, which are essentially the same point.

My view was that he had the car under control and was making his exit from the corner. If he is making the exit and pointing in generally the right direction he's made the corner. Does Ham just need to make the corner or do these two attacks constitute a single move? And if so does that mean both moves need to be complete?

I'm a Lando/Mclaren fan so this for me is pure interest in how that decision was made but it does look inconsistent and odd, but the stewards must have applied some logic to it that made sense to them.

What do you think this logic might be?

[dans79]

What is the rule or precedent for this?

The only sensible suggestion put forth was that in making the overtake he was only able to enter a disappearing wedge or not be able to slot into the race without going off track, which are essentially the same point.

My view was that he had the car under control and was making his exit from the corner. If he is making the exit and pointing in generally the right direction he's made the corner. Does Ham just need to make the corner or do these two attacks constitute a single move? And if so does that mean both moves need to be complete?

I'm a Lando/Mclaren fan so this for me is pure interest in how that decision was made but it does look inconsistent and odd, but the stewards must have applied some logic to it that made sense to them.

What do you think this logic might be?

The fia doesn't have clear guidelines, that's the fundamental problem. take a ,look at this article from last year when the fia changed the rules/guidlines.

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ru ... /10111621/


and note this garbage bit.

The FIA noted: “For avoidance of doubt, these are merely guidelines to assist the stewards in their decision making and are non-binding.

[chrisc90]

What evidence is there to say the FIA asked for the place to be given back?

[mwillems]

What is the rule or precedent for this?

The only sensible suggestion put forth was that in making the overtake he was only able to enter a disappearing wedge or not be able to slot into the race without going off track, which are essentially the same point.

My view was that he had the car under control and was making his exit from the corner. If he is making the exit and pointing in generally the right direction he's made the corner. Does Ham just need to make the corner or do these two attacks constitute a single move? And if so does that mean both moves need to be complete?

I'm a Lando/Mclaren fan so this for me is pure interest in how that decision was made but it does look inconsistent and odd, but the stewards must have applied some logic to it that made sense to them.

What do you think this logic might be?

The fia doesn't have clear guidelines, that's the fundamental problem. take a ,look at this article from last year when the fia changed the rules/guidlines.

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ru ... /10111621/


and note this garbage bit.

The FIA noted: “For avoidance of doubt, these are merely guidelines to assist the stewards in their decision making and are non-binding.

Yeah I had seen that and had been reading the Driving Standards Guideline, which is equally not clear, the document the article is referring to.

The most salient text was around a lasting advantage gained by going off track.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... elines.pdf

Problem is, as we know the rules are often ignored on lap one and leniency is given for hard racing, and that is the biggest precedent I can think of in this situation. They have generally encouraged hard and fast racing on lap 1 before it settles into a rhythm and the Russell/Piastri is an example of this.

[Just_a_fan]

What evidence is there to say the FIA asked for the place to be given back?

I think it was mentioned by Ted during the race - Mercedes had been "given the option" to give the places back.

[dans79]

What evidence is there to say the FIA asked for the place to be given back?

f1tv world feed, lap 5

Ted Kravitz "confirmation from Mercedes just now they were offered instructed what's the word persuaded to give that place back to Norris"

10 seconds later they displayed the no further investigation needed graphic.

[RZS10]

[snip]
We are having the same discussion in the Mclaren thread [...]
But the question I have been trying to ask is what determines when an overtake is complete?
[...] it does look inconsistent and odd, but the stewards must have applied some logic to it that made sense to them.

What do you think this logic might be?

Ideally the discussion of the incident would be in the race thread, then it wouldn't happen in multiples

I honestly do not want to be the judge of what is fine or not, i just try to look at the footage and make sense of it.

As you write, there seems to be little in the way of consistency, but who knows, maybe there was a discussion in some driver briefing and they said "hey what George did wasn't on" ... but if that did not happen, then this should have been fine as well.

I cannot explain the possible logic behind their decision, maybe they can read minds (just like some here) and knew his true intentions (he never really wanted to make the corner), maybe he just bailed too early and should have stayed next to George until the very last moment ... who knows.
Had it come to a penalty at least there would have been a two sentence decision document.

It also isn't clear what a completed overtake is, looking back at Monza for example, after Leclerc overtook Sainz into Rettifilo, Sainz was attacking Leclerc into della Roggia.
Sainz completely missed the braking point, cut the entire chicane and forced Leclerc to cut the chicane as well - They were approaching the chicane side by side, Sainz slightly ahead and no one intervened.

But then again, it was two Ferraris fighting in Italy.

[mwillems]

[snip]
We are having the same discussion in the Mclaren thread [...]
But the question I have been trying to ask is what determines when an overtake is complete?
[...] it does look inconsistent and odd, but the stewards must have applied some logic to it that made sense to them.

What do you think this logic might be?

Ideally the discussion of the incident would be in the race thread, then it wouldn't happen in multiples

I honestly do not want to be the judge of what is fine or not, i just try to look at the footage and make sense of it.

As you write, there seems to be little in the way of consistency, but who knows, maybe there was a discussion in some driver briefing and they said "hey what George did wasn't on" ... but if that did not happen, then this should have been fine as well.

I cannot explain the possible logic behind their decision, maybe they can read minds (just like some here) and knew his true intentions (he never really wanted to make the corner), maybe he just bailed too early and should have stayed next to George until the very last moment ... who knows.
Had it come to a penalty at least there would have been a two sentence decision document.

It also isn't clear what a completed overtake is, looking back at Monza for example, after Leclerc overtook Sainz into Rettifilo, Sainz was attacking Leclerc into della Roggia.
Sainz completely missed the braking point, cut the entire chicane and forced Leclerc to cut the chicane as well - They were approaching the chicane side by side, Sainz slightly ahead and no one intervened.

But then again, it was two Ferraris fighting in Italy.

Yes you are right about the race thread..! But a scurrilous suggestion of the Red car in Italy. Surely not.

It's a question that... I won't say will not be answered. It will in different ways, both in here and on track! It is part of racing because you need a certain amount of leeway to add common sense in.

But sometimes things like this just jump out and look different. As I say, it is the general lenience shown on lap 1 to encourage hard racing which was not shown here that stood out to me and all I've got is that the two drivers constituted a single move/challenge to the stewards.

It does surprise me though that there is no suggestion of what a completed overtake is, even an outline.

[dans79]

It does surprise me though that there is no suggestion of what a completed overtake is, even an outline.

some people would tell you that's intentional so the FIA/Stewards have leeway to change or not change the outcome!

[mwillems]

It does surprise me though that there is no suggestion of what a completed overtake is, even an outline.

some people would tell you that's intentional so the FIA/Stewards have leeway to change or not change the outcome!

To be fair I'm not sure it would make a difference. A Lasting Advantage is a moving target but still documented, let's not mention safety cars. Everything in the FIA docs is very much like the pirates code, more of a guideline than actual rules really.

Did Hamilton also pass Perez off track later and then not get penalised? Does anyone have footage of that at all to compare?

Edit: No matter I have seen it. Totally inconsistent.

[ringo]

No hamilton did not pass perez off track. Perez as usual doesnt give enough room and hamilton made sure to avoid him.
It's best to avoid damaging your car and thats what keeps hamilton scoring points every race.
As for the lap 1 thing with Norris. The FIA just messed that one up. It's just the plain and simple explanation.
Hamilton was past Norris. And had full control of his car on the track, even following the flank of russel's car with steering inputs. Russel did not leave space and hamilton had 2 choices. Run over the curb and possibly slide and collide with Russel or take evasive action.
Norris should not even have factored.