2025 Mexican Grand Prix - Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Oct 24 - 26

[timorous]

Sorry but what? George's complaints were bollocks. He lost the place well before any T1 incident. Him complaining about Max not handing back the place was complete rubbish - Max did hand back the places he was required to, namely to the Ferrari's. The only one that did not act properly there was Leclerc, who should have yielded to Hamilton.

I think, the issue is, if Max had attempted to actually make the corner, by slowing down etc he would have lost more than one place.

He played the game and knew what he could and couldn't do. But, he doesnt do the move if he cant just bomb around the grass, with little risk.

Maybe, but that seems a loooot of hopium to me. Looking a the top down footage for T1, the four lead cars are well ahead of the 2 Mercedes. If all cars were a bit more inward (plenty of room) with Max not braking and bottoming on the curb, he'd easily have stuck to 3th or worst case 4th position. Had Max braked earlier to slide back of the Ferraris, he'd have plenty of room to fall back, take T1 well in front of the Mercedes, and take the inside line in T2.
I don't see any scenario where Russell would claim the position that's not banking on the absurd.

The question boils down to how would they have approached the corner if there was gravel there instead.

It seems obvious that in that situation Max is not as aggressive but would that put him in range of George? There is no real way of knowing.

Personally I think corner cuts should be expensive and lose more time than staying on track, either through runoff design having gravel or through effective stewarding. The stewards have shown over many decades they are not effective so this track needs some gravel in those runoff areas to enforce natural consequences of going too aggressive or being overly optimistic.

[Ben1980]

I think, the issue is, if Max had attempted to actually make the corner, by slowing down etc he would have lost more than one place.

He played the game and knew what he could and couldn't do. But, he doesnt do the move if he cant just bomb around the grass, with little risk.

Maybe, but that seems a loooot of hopium to me. Looking a the top down footage for T1, the four lead cars are well ahead of the 2 Mercedes. If all cars were a bit more inward (plenty of room) with Max not braking and bottoming on the curb, he'd easily have stuck to 3th or worst case 4th position. Had Max braked earlier to slide back of the Ferraris, he'd have plenty of room to fall back, take T1 well in front of the Mercedes, and take the inside line in T2.
I don't see any scenario where Russell would claim the position that's not banking on the absurd.

The question boils down to how would they have approached the corner if there was gravel there instead.

It seems obvious that in that situation Max is not as aggressive but would that put him in range of George? There is no real way of knowing.

Personally I think corner cuts should be expensive and lose more time than staying on track, either through runoff design having gravel or through effective stewarding. The stewards have shown over many decades they are not effective so this track needs some gravel in those runoff areas to enforce natural consequences of going too aggressive or being overly optimistic.

He took the corner because he could. He went out wide knowing the risks, but also, that tgey were minimal in reality.

The fact he went so wide over the grass and back on just behind Lando, shows the lack of risk in doing it, and the actual benefit.

Going round the track would have been slower!

Its a terrible corner.

[Badger]

I keep seeing talk of the new rules. They are not rules but guidelines. It says this at the top of the document.

These are GUIDELINES and NOT REGULATIONS

The rules are still in Appendix L chapter 4 and section 2B clearly states moves that force another car off track are not allowed.

The purpose of the guidelines is to determine who is at fault in the case of contact at the apex. The number of arguments between he cut across me and I had won that corner were quite frequent so the guidelines give reference points for when it is cutting across Vs when the attacker has earned space.

They also cover situations at the exit to determine if the attacking outside driver has earned space or if the inside driver can take the usual racing line.

Nowhere in the preamble or in section A that cover overtakes on the inside does it state that if the overtaking car has priority they can force the defending driver off track, that is just made up nonsense.

The stewards use the guidelines to determine who is entitled to the corner exit. They don't consider it "forcing another off the track" when that driver was never entitled to space on the outside to begin with, we have tonnes of precedent for this. In that case it is on the outside driver to yield the corner. Hamilton fans used to be all too aware of this, but I guess that was contingent on who was on the receiving end of the squeeze I will refer you to this video where you can examine the US, Canada, and Suzuka incidents for yourself. No penalties mind you.

F1 is not much different now than it was back then in terms of driving standards and guidelines, people just like to complain a lot more.

[Henk_v]

I think, the issue is, if Max had attempted to actually make the corner, by slowing down etc he would have lost more than one place.

He played the game and knew what he could and couldn't do. But, he doesnt do the move if he cant just bomb around the grass, with little risk.

Maybe, but that seems a loooot of hopium to me. Looking a the top down footage for T1, the four lead cars are well ahead of the 2 Mercedes. If all cars were a bit more inward (plenty of room) with Max not braking and bottoming on the curb, he'd easily have stuck to 3th or worst case 4th position. Had Max braked earlier to slide back of the Ferraris, he'd have plenty of room to fall back, take T1 well in front of the Mercedes, and take the inside line in T2.
I don't see any scenario where Russell would claim the position that's not banking on the absurd.

The question boils down to how would they have approached the corner if there was gravel there instead.

It seems obvious that in that situation Max is not as aggressive but would that put him in range of George? There is no real way of knowing.

Personally I think corner cuts should be expensive and lose more time than staying on track, either through runoff design having gravel or through effective stewarding. The stewards have shown over many decades they are not effective so this track needs some gravel in those runoff areas to enforce natural consequences of going too aggressive or being overly optimistic.

Please, please look at the top view and Max's inboard before commemting. He WAS attempting to make that corner, he even locked up. He braked earlier than the ferrari next to him (or at least attempted to).
Look at his steering wheel when on the grass. He is NOT "easily cutting the corner to gain advantage" het is fighting the car to stay out of the wall with his steering in full lock, missing the wall by just 10 cm. He was very, very nearly out of the race there, because he got pushed off track.

Like DChem posts, they were 4 wide. This is a race incident that nearly cost Max the championship. You can clearly see that rejoining in P2 is 100% involuntatarely and he gave the positions back instantly to nullify any lasting advantage.

[Farnborough]

One of the best starts to a race for a long time.

Started with LH boxed in behind successful slipstream of LN, then moving out into LC , who compromised MV that was taking legitimate line. Final at turn in, LN had moved them all over to the left to gain angle for himself at turn initiation, MV most compromised.

I've no complaint about any of that, exemplary in driving skill from all 4. They all did what they needed.

Contributors continually come on forum in criticism of "boring" races, this wasn't. But it brings out the pedantic, micro management projection and judgement that just cannot exist in those close proximity, get stuck into, type races that ultimately get reference as real classic competition.

Then we have to listen to GR going on, and on, and on .... over radio and public media ad infinitum.

We desperately want racing, and we got it. I'll personally celebrate that. I want to see who wins, not bleet on in the great wide Internet for some perceived slight by some non achievers.

[Ben1980]

Maybe, but that seems a loooot of hopium to me. Looking a the top down footage for T1, the four lead cars are well ahead of the 2 Mercedes. If all cars were a bit more inward (plenty of room) with Max not braking and bottoming on the curb, he'd easily have stuck to 3th or worst case 4th position. Had Max braked earlier to slide back of the Ferraris, he'd have plenty of room to fall back, take T1 well in front of the Mercedes, and take the inside line in T2.
I don't see any scenario where Russell would claim the position that's not banking on the absurd.

The question boils down to how would they have approached the corner if there was gravel there instead.

It seems obvious that in that situation Max is not as aggressive but would that put him in range of George? There is no real way of knowing.

Personally I think corner cuts should be expensive and lose more time than staying on track, either through runoff design having gravel or through effective stewarding. The stewards have shown over many decades they are not effective so this track needs some gravel in those runoff areas to enforce natural consequences of going too aggressive or being overly optimistic.

Please, please look at the top view and Max's inboard before commemting. He WAS attempting to make that corner, he even locked up. He braked earlier than the ferrari next to him (or at least attempted to).
Look at his steering wheel when on the grass. He is NOT "easily cutting the corner to gain advantage" het is fighting the car to stay out of the wall with his steering in full lock, missing the wall by just 10 cm. He was very, very nearly out of the race there, because he got pushed off track.

Like DChem posts, they were 4 wide. This is a race incident that nearly cost Max the championship. You can clearly see that rejoining in P2 is 100% involuntatarely and he gave the positions back instantly to nullify any lasting advantage.

I think your arguing a different point.

If there was more of a risk at that corner he doesnt make the move alongside.

If there was gravel, he isnt taking the risk. I dont think he was ever really at risk of hitting the wall , but he did gain on Norris by running wide. He was unlikely to make the corner at that speed at the position.

He didnt do anything wrong, because he could get away with it.

But, when so many go wide, there needs to be a better deterant

[timorous]

Maybe, but that seems a loooot of hopium to me. Looking a the top down footage for T1, the four lead cars are well ahead of the 2 Mercedes. If all cars were a bit more inward (plenty of room) with Max not braking and bottoming on the curb, he'd easily have stuck to 3th or worst case 4th position. Had Max braked earlier to slide back of the Ferraris, he'd have plenty of room to fall back, take T1 well in front of the Mercedes, and take the inside line in T2.
I don't see any scenario where Russell would claim the position that's not banking on the absurd.

The question boils down to how would they have approached the corner if there was gravel there instead.

It seems obvious that in that situation Max is not as aggressive but would that put him in range of George? There is no real way of knowing.

Personally I think corner cuts should be expensive and lose more time than staying on track, either through runoff design having gravel or through effective stewarding. The stewards have shown over many decades they are not effective so this track needs some gravel in those runoff areas to enforce natural consequences of going too aggressive or being overly optimistic.

Please, please look at the top view and Max's inboard before commemting. He WAS attempting to make that corner, he even locked up. He braked earlier than the ferrari next to him (or at least attempted to).
Look at his steering wheel when on the grass. He is NOT "easily cutting the corner to gain advantage" het is fighting the car to stay out of the wall with his steering in full lock, missing the wall by just 10 cm. He was very, very nearly out of the race there, because he got pushed off track.

Like DChem posts, they were 4 wide. This is a race incident that nearly cost Max the championship. You can clearly see that rejoining in P2 is 100% involuntatarely and he gave the positions back instantly to nullify any lasting advantage.

For clarification I don't think max should be penalised for T1 L1. It seemed fine given the corner. Ideally something changes at that corner to change the risk reward calculus to avoid it being a thing in future.

Charles was more egregious imo.

[Farnborough]

The question boils down to how would they have approached the corner if there was gravel there instead.

It seems obvious that in that situation Max is not as aggressive but would that put him in range of George? There is no real way of knowing.

Personally I think corner cuts should be expensive and lose more time than staying on track, either through runoff design having gravel or through effective stewarding. The stewards have shown over many decades they are not effective so this track needs some gravel in those runoff areas to enforce natural consequences of going too aggressive or being overly optimistic.

Please, please look at the top view and Max's inboard before commemting. He WAS attempting to make that corner, he even locked up. He braked earlier than the ferrari next to him (or at least attempted to).
Look at his steering wheel when on the grass. He is NOT "easily cutting the corner to gain advantage" het is fighting the car to stay out of the wall with his steering in full lock, missing the wall by just 10 cm. He was very, very nearly out of the race there, because he got pushed off track.

Like DChem posts, they were 4 wide. This is a race incident that nearly cost Max the championship. You can clearly see that rejoining in P2 is 100% involuntatarely and he gave the positions back instantly to nullify any lasting advantage.

I think your arguing a different point.

If there was more of a risk at that corner he doesnt make the move alongside.

If there was gravel, he isnt taking the risk. I dont think he was ever really at risk of hitting the wall , but he did gain on Norris by running wide. He was unlikely to make the corner at that speed at the position.

He didnt do anything wrong, because he could get away with it.

But, when so many go wide, there needs to be a better deterant

Effectively, through "technological" advance and design rules, the formula has evolved into a braking race at these points in the circuit.
I don't know what else people expect in outcome when the competition organised as such.

Many variables have been removed, automated, or just deleted through highly intensive data collection and analysis. It has distilled it to these contentious moments that everyone wants to see management of down to ridiculously ludicrous and finite measurement.

[timorous]

I keep seeing talk of the new rules. They are not rules but guidelines. It says this at the top of the document.

These are GUIDELINES and NOT REGULATIONS

The rules are still in Appendix L chapter 4 and section 2B clearly states moves that force another car off track are not allowed.

The purpose of the guidelines is to determine who is at fault in the case of contact at the apex. The number of arguments between he cut across me and I had won that corner were quite frequent so the guidelines give reference points for when it is cutting across Vs when the attacker has earned space.

They also cover situations at the exit to determine if the attacking outside driver has earned space or if the inside driver can take the usual racing line.

Nowhere in the preamble or in section A that cover overtakes on the inside does it state that if the overtaking car has priority they can force the defending driver off track, that is just made up nonsense.

The stewards use the guidelines to determine who is entitled to the corner exit. They don't consider it "forcing another off the track" when that driver was never entitled to space on the outside to begin with, we have tonnes of precedent for this. In that case it is on the outside driver to yield the corner. Hamilton fans used to be all too aware of this, but I guess that was contingent on who was on the receiving end of the squeeze I will refer you to this video where you can examine the US, Canada, and Suzuka incidents for yourself. No penalties mind you.
https://youtu.be/lUj74hs62fM?t=195
F1 is not much different now than it was back then in terms of driving standards and guidelines, people just like to complain a lot more.

Historically the defending driver has always been entitled to space unless they are a good half a car behind on entry / exit depending on if the defend the inside or stay on the outside.

With that in mind it seems like a better and more aligned with the intent interpretation would be that these guidelines determine when the defending driver can take the normal racing line and when they need to compromise or face penalty. They should not be used to say when the attacking driver can force another car off track because for as long as the defending driver is substantially alongside there should be no circumstances where they can be forced off track. The guidelines also at no point say that the attacking driving winning priority grants them the ability force the other driver off. That is a made up interpretation that seems to have been accepted despite it's clear absurdity.

[Juzh]

Drivers need to understand outside line is off limits. Sometime in the last decade drivers got the urge to always hold it around the outside when a divebomb is attempted against them instead of trying to perform a switchback. If a switchback isn't possible then the position is lost. This used to be the case I believe up until like 2015-2016 when slowly but surely everyone would start to refuse to yield a place to a car on the inside in a 50/50 situation.

On the topic of abu dhabi 2021, Bottas showed us exactly how to to the right thing when dive-bombed. Yes, position is lost, but that's racing. Rules as they stand currently attempt to encourage this kind of racing, but drivers refuse to accept it. Eventually they will learn it the hard way.

[Badger]

I keep seeing talk of the new rules. They are not rules but guidelines. It says this at the top of the document.



The rules are still in Appendix L chapter 4 and section 2B clearly states moves that force another car off track are not allowed.

The purpose of the guidelines is to determine who is at fault in the case of contact at the apex. The number of arguments between he cut across me and I had won that corner were quite frequent so the guidelines give reference points for when it is cutting across Vs when the attacker has earned space.

They also cover situations at the exit to determine if the attacking outside driver has earned space or if the inside driver can take the usual racing line.

Nowhere in the preamble or in section A that cover overtakes on the inside does it state that if the overtaking car has priority they can force the defending driver off track, that is just made up nonsense.

The stewards use the guidelines to determine who is entitled to the corner exit. They don't consider it "forcing another off the track" when that driver was never entitled to space on the outside to begin with, we have tonnes of precedent for this. In that case it is on the outside driver to yield the corner. Hamilton fans used to be all too aware of this, but I guess that was contingent on who was on the receiving end of the squeeze I will refer you to this video where you can examine the US, Canada, and Suzuka incidents for yourself. No penalties mind you.
https://youtu.be/lUj74hs62fM?t=195
F1 is not much different now than it was back then in terms of driving standards and guidelines, people just like to complain a lot more.

Historically the defending driver has always been entitled to space unless they are a good half a car behind on entry / exit depending on if the defend the inside or stay on the outside.

With that in mind it seems like a better and more aligned with the intent interpretation would be that these guidelines determine when the defending driver can take the normal racing line and when they need to compromise or face penalty. They should not be used to say when the attacking driver can force another car off track because for as long as the defending driver is substantially alongside there should be no circumstances where they can be forced off track. The guidelines also at no point say that the attacking driving winning priority grants them the ability force the other driver off. That is a made up interpretation that seems to have been accepted despite it's clear absurdity.

Clearly not judging by the historical examples of Hamilton pushing Rosberg off the track despite the fact that Rosberg was fully alongside. Those examples never resulted in penalties, do you think they should have?

You keep making the argument that there "should be no circumstances under which the defending driver on the outside can be pushed off the track". "Should" doesn't come into it, what matters are the accepted standards and guidelines that the drivers and stewards have agreed to beforehand, and what precedent has been set. And as we can clearly see in that video I provided, it has been perfectly acceptable to push the outside car off the track for a long time, provided you have proper position as the attacking car on the inside, then it's your corner. In this case "proper position" means having at least your front wheel alongside the mirror at the apex because that's what the drivers and stewards have agreed as the standard in the guidelines. You can take issue with those guidelines if you want, that's fine, but don't deny that it is the current standard. What you feel "should" be the standard is irrelevant.

[TimW]

Drivers need to understand outside line is off limits. Sometime in the last decade drivers got the urge to always hold it around the outside when a divebomb is attempted against them instead of trying to perform a switchback. If a switchback isn't possible then the position is lost. This used to be the case I believe up until like 2015-2016 when slowly but surely everyone would start to refuse to yield a place to a car on the inside in a 50/50 situation.

On the topic of abu dhabi 2021, Bottas showed us exactly how to to the right thing when dive-bombed. Yes, position is lost, but that's racing. Rules as they stand currently attempt to encourage this kind of racing, but drivers refuse to accept it. Eventually they will learn it the hard way.

Exactly. Below clip is now considered great racing. If either of them would have tried to hold on to the outside on these divebombs, they would have been forced off, and the discussions on dirty driving would have been endless.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=SJiAffeA ... mE&t=1m37s

(From 1:37 of the timestamp does not work)

[venkyhere]

This Mexico GP has been one of the most entertaining races in the recent past, the crescendo building up all the way to the final 3 laps, when the stewards thought 'wait... we haven't done anything utterly stupid in this race' , and decided to yellow flag the race. I wonder whether they too have only the TV feed as 'video' and have trouble accessing the onboard view of any car. Because if they had actually seen the onboard of Sainz, it was clearly evident he was very considerate and parked behind a barrier. There was no need to yellow. We would have witnessed a nail biting finish. But that was not to be.

Now, coming to various opinions about the penalties handed/not-handed out, do any of us really believe that any of us will be able to convince any other with the opposite opinion, by repeatedly posting about the same topic, again and again ? Confirmation bias is extremely high in social media - that's a given ; but in such forums as this, where everyone is passionate about the sport and think of themselves as 'experts' , confirmation bias will rule the roost. Certain driver(s) have been successfully branded as bond-villain characters (not without on track behavior by themselves contributing to the same) , and certain other driver(s) are branded as saviour-jesus-of-humanity characters (through clever PR) , and subconsciously, it has affected people in this forum as well (we take pride in ourselves as wizened veterans of the audience and think our opinions are purely objective, and not affected by 'narratives') and therefore none of us view incidents in the race 'purely objectively' , we have our biases. And I am including myself in the list, most admittedly.

So we should stop taking opinions posted here too seriously and keep counter posting, looking for the 'final word' about a topic/discussion. Make your post, and move on, please. We have no stake in this sport and are here for entertainment (the human element, the tech element). Most of us can read the 'flared up emotion' in between the lines of so many posts, can't we ? Why don't we cool off on the stewarding decisions ? It has never been consistent, always been questionable, and the drivers union has so much 'say' in it. Why is that ? Because the stewards are 'part-time-contract-workers' and not really permanent professionals who are part of FIA/FoM. Perhaps the money Ben Sulayem uses to fuel his private jet to go to every race, so that he can thrust himself in front of cameras for a sum total of 30 seconds, can be used to pay some actual professional permanent employees. The way it is currently, it's like spending huge money to host a football world cup, have the best of facilities and best of players, but calling up a bunch of bar/club bouncers to become the referees of matches.

[AR3-GP]

That was one of the best races of the year behind Norris.

[timorous]

The stewards use the guidelines to determine who is entitled to the corner exit. They don't consider it "forcing another off the track" when that driver was never entitled to space on the outside to begin with, we have tonnes of precedent for this. In that case it is on the outside driver to yield the corner. Hamilton fans used to be all too aware of this, but I guess that was contingent on who was on the receiving end of the squeeze I will refer you to this video where you can examine the US, Canada, and Suzuka incidents for yourself. No penalties mind you.
https://youtu.be/lUj74hs62fM?t=195
F1 is not much different now than it was back then in terms of driving standards and guidelines, people just like to complain a lot more.

Historically the defending driver has always been entitled to space unless they are a good half a car behind on entry / exit depending on if the defend the inside or stay on the outside.

With that in mind it seems like a better and more aligned with the intent interpretation would be that these guidelines determine when the defending driver can take the normal racing line and when they need to compromise or face penalty. They should not be used to say when the attacking driver can force another car off track because for as long as the defending driver is substantially alongside there should be no circumstances where they can be forced off track. The guidelines also at no point say that the attacking driving winning priority grants them the ability force the other driver off. That is a made up interpretation that seems to have been accepted despite it's clear absurdity.

Clearly not judging by the historical examples of Hamilton pushing Rosberg off the track despite the fact that Rosberg was fully alongside. Those examples never resulted in penalties, do you think they should have?

If F1 wants to encourage side by side racing then yes, pushing a car out when they are fully alongside should be a penalty and now it is so that is a good thing these guidelines get right.

You keep making the argument that there "should be no circumstances under which the defending driver on the outside can be pushed off the track". "Should" doesn't come into it, what matters are the accepted standards and guidelines that the drivers and stewards have agreed to beforehand, and what precedent has been set. And as we can clearly see in that video I provided, it has been perfectly acceptable to push the outside car off the track for a long time, provided you have proper position as the attacking car on the inside, then it's your corner. In this case "proper position" means having at least your front wheel alongside the mirror at the apex because that's what the drivers and stewards have agreed as the standard in the guidelines. You can take issue with those guidelines if you want, that's fine, but don't deny that it is the current standard. What you feel "should" be the standard is irrelevant.

Given the comments from some of the drivers and the consistent moaning about steward decisions when it comes to racing situations it would seem there is a big disconnect between what the stewards do and what the drivers / fans want.