2025 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix - Jeddah, April 18-20

[chrisc90]

Is Max having his front wheel in front of Oscar's front wheel (in the onboards) the evidence for "Max being ahead at the apex"? That depends a lot on where those two are pointing to.
I admit that I was under the impression that Oscar was ahead at the apex. Now I am not so sure.
If you made a line perpendicular to the kerb(s) at the apex (45 degrees to both straights), I get the feeling that it would intercept Oscar's left front endplate first. By that metric Oscar was ahead at the apex.
So... how do we measure "ahead" and how we measure "at the apex"?
Just for messing up, I'd love to hear anyone define "the apex" in Shanghai.

Vanja did a bit analysis with the overhead photo.

Couple onboards though..
- Oscar

- Max

[bluechris]

I think they were side by side but Oscar pulled a "Max Verstapen" on Max Verstapen. The new ruling say that the inside driver need to make the corner so as long Oscar DID make the corner all is fine from his side. Now Max and here is where i disagree with Palmer analysis, maybe he carried more speed than Q3 as they say according to telemetry but this is not certain that he could had not make the turn if Oscar wasn't there but Oscar was there and deliberately went with higher speed and makes the corner. Max that time saw that he will not be able the turn and preferred to go out hopping to be 1st lap incident or "Oscar throw me out".
That's my take on this and i agree with the penalty.

[Farnborough]

Do I remember it wrong, or was the rule that whoever is ahead at the apex “owns” the corner implemented in response to Max operating repeatedly in the gray zones of the ruleset?

Reasonable I feel.

To which can be added the Schumacher savage chop when he didn't "optimise" traction fully when starting from pole.

Also, Russel openly "gaming" the fixed, five second penalty? in order to take advantage of track position over that 5 sec time loss as strategic acceptance in overall gain. Openly admitted in post race word, along with Alonso trying to point out to stewards the same situation a little earlier (Russia GP) in first corner contention.

[chrisc90]

Do I remember it wrong, or was the rule that whoever is ahead at the apex “owns” the corner implemented in response to Max operating repeatedly in the gray zones of the ruleset?

Reasonable I feel.

To which can be added the Schumacher savage chop when he didn't "optimise" traction fully when starting from pole.

Also, Russel openly "gaming" the fixed, five second penalty? in order to take advantage of track position over that 5 sec time loss as strategic acceptance in overall gain. Openly admitted in post race word, along with Alonso trying to point out to stewards the same situation a little earlier (Russia GP) in first corner contention.

Have you any links to those interviews?

If Russell is courting the fact it was worth the 5second penalty....then its a bit ironic coming from him after doing the same a couple seasons ago. (spain??)

[Farnborough]

Is Max having his front wheel in front of Oscar's front wheel (in the onboards) the evidence for "Max being ahead at the apex"? That depends a lot on where those two are pointing to.
I admit that I was under the impression that Oscar was ahead at the apex. Now I am not so sure.
If you made a line perpendicular to the kerb(s) at the apex (45 degrees to both straights), I get the feeling that it would intercept Oscar's left front endplate first. By that metric Oscar was ahead at the apex.
So... how do we measure "ahead" and how we measure "at the apex"?
Just for messing up, I'd love to hear anyone define "the apex" in Shanghai.

I was thinking the same ... track topography is paramount in this scenario.

The "folded" tightly chicane giving this effect time and again. Views based on driver allegiance will naturally give opposed situations in discussion. Swap,the driver's position in the same incident, then all the discussion too will follow.
Swap the rules and the same will happen with driver approach. The track will always give that in same scenario.

As you note, Shanghai is a loooong sort out initially as speed comes off from straight, distilled then into the tight flip/flop with less risk and contention.
Brazil, long lazy chicane with more room to manoeuvre, less ultimate opinion, still some push and shove though.
Start of Monaco, far more clear cut in reality with that barrier giving absolutely nothing on the outside.

[Farnborough]

Do I remember it wrong, or was the rule that whoever is ahead at the apex “owns” the corner implemented in response to Max operating repeatedly in the gray zones of the ruleset?

Reasonable I feel.

To which can be added the Schumacher savage chop when he didn't "optimise" traction fully when starting from pole.

Also, Russel openly "gaming" the fixed, five second penalty? in order to take advantage of track position over that 5 sec time loss as strategic acceptance in overall gain. Openly admitted in post race word, along with Alonso trying to point out to stewards the same situation a little earlier (Russia GP) in first corner contention.

Have you any links to those interviews?

If Russell is courting the fact it was worth the 5second penalty....then its a bit ironic coming from him after doing the same a couple seasons ago. (spain??)

I was referring to the "genesis" of these behaviour traits. As you note, historic in that Russel was openly discussing at Spain & Monza i think a couple of years back. Taking a pragmatic approach to accepting 5 for a gain in pure track position, quite pragmatic, but wouldn't be missed by other competitors.

[hollus]

I managed to miss Vanja’s analysis. Have a link, or thread and date?

[Wouter]

I managed to miss Vanja’s analysis. Have a link, or thread and date?

.
You have to click on the 9th (last) tweet and than scroll up to see all the tweets and open the tweets one by one and the photo's.

[Ferry]

So... how do we measure "ahead" and how we measure "at the apex"?

Depends if you have an early or late apex also. And strictly, apex is a point, not a line. So there's now way the outer driver is ever "hitting the apex". Is there an official definition of apex in F1-racing?
To be able to adhere to the apex rule, you need to know exactly where the apex is. And you need to have a reasonably chance to judge it. When committing fully to your line, there's now way you can suddenly make a car widths extra just because the outer driver happened to beat you by 1 cm at the apex by releasing the brakes.

[Seanspeed]

One could even argue that Oscar gained the position at the start, then Max become the overtaking driver with his car fully alongside (even ahead) for the corner therefore should have been allowed room on track.

Wasn't Max slightly ahead at the apex? Which makes Piastri the overtaking driver again. Until he is ahead, then it's Max once more. At what point do you change from the overtaker to the one being overtaken?

That's the whole thing. How do you determine who is 'ahead' in a left/right chicane-esque sequence like that anyways? The point is to be ahead coming out of the sequence, not going into it, and I will go to my grave claiming that there should never be ANY legal justification for running another driver alongside you off-track, ever. All of this is easily solvable and it's absolutely ridiculous they keep letting this nonsense keep going on.

[Seanspeed]

I managed to miss Vanja’s analysis. Have a link, or thread and date?

.
You have to click on the 9th (last) tweet and than scroll up to see all the tweets and open the tweets one by one and the photo's.

Anybody who thinks that Piastri wasn't intending to run Verstappen off-track no matter what is not being serious. It was plain as day. But of course this is allowed 90% of the time for some absolutely bizarre reason, even in situations where it's quite straightforwardly against the rules. Piastri got away with this literally multiple times last year. It's no wonder he's gonna keep doing it if he keeps benefiting from it. Same reason why soccer players constantly dive.

I'm not saying I think Verstappen was committed to making the corner, but it's an absurd situation when you know somebody like Piastri is 100% going to run you off anyways. Not that Verstappen hasn't done the same thing to plenty of people. I've got no bone in this fight based on driver, I just hate how poorly handled it all is. They've overcomplicated it to hell, and made the rulings on it stupidly inconsistent.

[venkyhere]

swap the two drivers and the stewards would have still given the +5s to Max citing that he pushed off Piastri 'who had no option but to take the ecape route'. Thats how inconsistent and 'subjectively judgemental' the stewarding is.

[bluechris]

I managed to miss Vanja’s analysis. Have a link, or thread and date?

.
You have to click on the 9th (last) tweet and than scroll up to see all the tweets and open the tweets one by one and the photo's.

Anybody who thinks that Piastri wasn't intending to run Verstappen off-track no matter what is not being serious. It was plain as day. But of course this is allowed 90% of the time for some absolutely bizarre reason, even in situations where it's quite straightforwardly against the rules. Piastri got away with this literally multiple times last year. It's no wonder he's gonna keep doing it if he keeps benefiting from it. Same reason why soccer players constantly dive.

I'm not saying I think Verstappen was committed to making the corner, but it's an absurd situation when you know somebody like Piastri is 100% going to run you off anyways. Not that Verstappen hasn't done the same thing to plenty of people. I've got no bone in this fight based on driver, I just hate how poorly handled it all is. They've overcomplicated it to hell, and made the rulings on it stupidly inconsistent.

You are correct on this but you must keep in mind who is the inventor of this move?

[Wouter]

.
You have to click on the 9th (last) tweet and than scroll up to see all the tweets and open the tweets one by one and the photo's.

Anybody who thinks that Piastri wasn't intending to run Verstappen off-track no matter what is not being serious. It was plain as day. But of course this is allowed 90% of the time for some absolutely bizarre reason, even in situations where it's quite straightforwardly against the rules. Piastri got away with this literally multiple times last year. It's no wonder he's gonna keep doing it if he keeps benefiting from it. Same reason why soccer players constantly dive.

I'm not saying I think Verstappen was committed to making the corner, but it's an absurd situation when you know somebody like Piastri is 100% going to run you off anyways. Not that Verstappen hasn't done the same thing to plenty of people. I've got no bone in this fight based on driver, I just hate how poorly handled it all is. They've overcomplicated it to hell, and made the rulings on it stupidly inconsistent.

.

You are correct on this but you must keep in mind who is the inventor of this move?

.
Does it matter who was the inventor of this move? No, it wasn't Max. Schumacher, Senna, and many more they did it way earlier.

[Ferry]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/reve ... h-penalty/

The new guidelines demand that the overtaking car.

i) Have its front axle AT LEAST ALONGSIDE THE MIRROR of the other car PRIOR TO AND AT THE APEX

ii) Be driven in a fully controlled manner particularly from entry to apex, and not have ‘dived in’.

iii) In the stewards’ estimation, have taken a reasonable racing line and been able to complete the move whilst remaining within track limits.