Does F1 need another tweak to overtaking rules?

[Farnborough]

Have a look at this at 12:20 timeline onward



The manoeuvre and just as important, the attitude in commentary from that KR vs MS failed overtake.

Oh how attitude changes all the snivelling and ball aching nowadays, from drivers and commentary around the net. Pathetic really, isn't it ?

And that era, BOTH the lead driver AND the challenging one new when to back out of it generally, at least they accepted that.

All the analysis, drawing lines on "VAR" type viewing scenarios .... whats the point really .... we want to see real racing, not whingeing.

[dialtone]

Have a look at this at 12:20 timeline onward



The manoeuvre and just as important, the attitude in commentary from that KR vs MS failed overtake.

Oh how attitude changes all the snivelling and ball aching nowadays, from drivers and commentary around the net. Pathetic really, isn't it ?

And that era, BOTH the lead driver AND the challenging one new when to back out of it generally, at least they accepted that.

All the analysis, drawing lines on "VAR" type viewing scenarios .... whats the point really .... we want to see real racing, not whingeing.

I'm not sure what your argument is... You liked that? Basically almost passed Raikkonen who just pushed MS in the grass, albeit a lot more gently than driver do today, and that's it. "Duel" finished in a corner because after that Raikkonen was 2s ahead. That was bad for the show, the sport has made huge steps forward from that era.

[Farnborough]

My point is, that Brundle in particular offered a very different view and assessment of that incident to the one he's now delivering

What changed in driving position ? Nothing as far as I can see.

Was it accepted then ? Seems like it, by Brundle in his commentary. Perhzps he'd like to revisit that race before his public comment now.

Are the teams, drivers and officials offering a misty eyed view of how racing used to be ? And think they need to create that now, with no real view of their historical inaccuracies.

A quote just attributed to Herbert (as I understand it) "“The whole intention of Verstappen was to try to let Ferrari get the 1-2 finish. I think that’s definitely what Verstappen intended and tried to achieve, I understand why he did it but I don’t agree with it, I don’t think many people do."
Also,, isn't that pure projection, speculation, supposition or similar, specifically in the quote about MV aim regarding Ferrari ? Should a FIA steward be offering such view to public ? Isn't that evidence of bias in determining the culpability for penalty ?

How does this fit with the stewards decision should not take into account the outcome when a penalty is given ?
It certainly doesn't look to be from someone supposedly holding and tasked with delivering an impartial view to me.

Is he saying the stewrds task is now to have a driver change their behaviour, and so linking further "control" to that independent decision ?

It looks more and more full of holes, and lacking in intellectual rigour in how it's delivered. The British non specialist press do not need any encouragement to get on someone's case when positioned as adversary of a British sportsman. Its often a very biased view.

I can't believe LH even getting involved in this rhetoric either, after his position in taking out MV at Silverstone. He's on very shaky moral ground in publishing that view. Could even be called hypocritical depending on your algience.

I think the FIA need to get their heads together and understand their potentially defamatory statement (delivered by Herbert from his official position) can he be relied upon to discharge his duties fairly through to the end of this championship ?

[dialtone]

A quote just attributed to Herbert (as I understand it) "“The whole intention of Verstappen was to try to let Ferrari get the 1-2 finish. I think that’s definitely what Verstappen intended and tried to achieve, I understand why he did it but I don’t agree with it, I don’t think many people do."
Also,, isn't that pure projection, speculation, supposition or similar, specifically in the quote about MV aim regarding Ferrari ? Should a FIA steward be offering such view to public ? Isn't that evidence of bias in determining the culpability for penalty ?

Right, he shouldn't say any of that because it's totally irrelevant. Max can plan whatever he wants without needs to justify it so long as it complies with the rules. However this is nothing new, when Michael touched Villeneuve in Jerez immediately he was DSQ from the championship because everyone assumed his intention was to crash so he could win the title, and he had precedent of having done that a couple of times before.

Ultimately Max has only himself to blame if that's how he's being seen by some stewards.

How does this fit with the stewards decision should not take into account the outcome when a penalty is given ?
It certainly doesn't look to be from someone supposedly holding and tasked with delivering an impartial view to me.

IMHO that's a different topic. The penalty for passing off track or gaining an advantage is fixed in the rulebook, they didn't give Max 30s each because he did it to his WDC rival.

Knowing the intentionality can be helpful to determine if a black flag should be given, as MS was subjected to in 1997.

Is he saying the stewrds task is now to have a driver change their behaviour, and so linking further "control" to that independent decision ?

That is 10000000% the task of the stewards in any sport. That's what the stewards are there for and what penalties are for. And what it means when people say: "FIA did this to themselves".

I can't believe LH even getting involved in this rhetoric either, after his position in taking out MV at Silverstone. He's on very shaky moral ground in publishing that view. Could even be called hypocritical depending on your algience.

Drivers are PR machines... MV going to the hospital was a show, LH and GR lent themselves to the absolute show that was 2022 Baku. Coulthard brake checking MS in Spa 1998 and then faking he didn't know for the press was a total show. Drivers aren't the saints here.

I think the FIA need to get their heads together and understand their potentially defamatory statement (delivered by Herbert from his official position) can he be relied upon to discharge his duties fairly through to the end of this championship ?

I don't care about Johnny Herbert specifically, I do think it's ridiculous that sport worth billions cannot have professional stewarding.