2019 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal June 7-9

[dans79]

Drivers should dodge compromised vehicle by predicting their trajectories.

This statement is ridiculous!

[roon]

Drivers should dodge compromised vehicle by predicting their trajectories.

This statement is ridiculous!

Why?

[dans79]

Drivers should dodge compromised vehicle by predicting their trajectories.

This statement is ridiculous!

Why?

You are saying a driver should be able to predict what a car is going to do. The problem with that, is the other driver has input on what the compromised car is going to do.

[zibby43]

Drivers should dodge compromised vehicle by predicting their trajectories.

This statement is ridiculous!

Why?

As someone that does amateur racing in substantially slower GT-type cars, predicting the trajectory of a compromised car while you are trying to look ahead to the apex, mind your braking point, and then adjust all of that accordingly while being vaguely aware of the compromised car, is hard enough.

Cars behave funny when traveling at those speeds, over surfaces they're not supposed to be traveling over (grass). Who would've ever thought Bottas would've avoided the wall during his spin in Q3? Impossible to predict that.

Just my 2 cents.

[Jackles-UK]

Anyone who disagrees with the penalty can only be aggrieved with the rule itself, there can be absolutely no argument that Vettel did contravene the rule as it stands currently. It is worth noting that the rule does not apply leniency for a lack of control as Vettel tried to argue.

Don’t forget that “the track” is defined as the white line, not the wall, so whether intentional or not it’s a pretty impossible task to argue that Vettel left a whole car’s width for Hamilton to place his car. The in-car from Hamilton clearly showed him having to take serious avoiding action and the stewards were only following the rules as they were written. It’s the FIA that need to review the rule if there’s a disagreement with it.

[roon]

This statement is ridiculous!

Why?

You are saying a driver should be able to predict what a car is going to do. The problem with that, is the other driver has input on what the compromised car is going to do.

Indeed but if its a traction limited/reduced scenario I'd think these guys would guess: car will likely go straight. Inertia.

Ham not setting up a line left of, instead of right of, Vettel's wall trajectory may point to his own traction limits or reaction speed time in that moment. Otherwise, why not just go for a pass to the left of Vettel's wall-bound re-entry trajectory?

[dans79]

Why?

You are saying a driver should be able to predict what a car is going to do. The problem with that, is the other driver has input on what the compromised car is going to do.

Indeed but if its a traction limited/reduced scenario I'd think these guys would guess: car will likely go straight. Inertia.

Ham not setting up a line left of, instead of right of, Vettel's wall trajectory may point to his own traction limits or reaction speed time in that moment. Otherwise, why not just go for a pass to the left of Vettel's wall-bound re-entry trajectory?

You missed the point, when specifically is Lewis supposed to make this judgment?

Watch vettel's onboard, he loses the rear, and Vettel makes a correction going into the right-hander. If he hadn't done that the car would have just spun out and most likely got into the grass backwards and hit the barrier. Then he makes another correction that points the car towards the barrier on the left. So he could have gone into the left-hand barrier nose first.

Thus, it's completely unrealistic for the following driver to predict what the compromised cars going to do, because the driver in the compromised car has way too much input on to where it's going.

[LM10]

Just watched the race. Ridiculous decision by the stewards. Vettel tried his best to keep the car under control and not crash into the wall. He didn't cut Hamilton intentionally. That's so obvious by just looking at the steering wheel movement.
Vettel was not only robbed a win, but this penalty also put him into third place. If FIA tries to make racing as boring as possible, they're achieving it perfectly.

Get in there Lewis!

[dans79]

Vettel was not only robbed a win, but this penalty also put him into third place. If FIA tries to make racing as boring as possible, they're achieving it perfectly.

I'm sure you would have been dead silent if the positions had been reversed!

[roon]

Bundle groans immediately at 4:30 in that highlight reel.

Thus, it's completely unrealistic for the following driver to predict what the compromised cars going to do, because the driver in the compromised car has way too much input on to where it's going.

This is reduced on grass.

[komninosm]

Why?

You are saying a driver should be able to predict what a car is going to do. The problem with that, is the other driver has input on what the compromised car is going to do.

Indeed but if its a traction limited/reduced scenario I'd think these guys would guess: car will likely go straight. Inertia.

Ham not setting up a line left of, instead of right of, Vettel's wall trajectory may point to his own traction limits or reaction speed time in that moment. Otherwise, why not just go for a pass to the left of Vettel's wall-bound re-entry trajectory?

That's BS and you know it.
Vettel could have delayed his acceleration for 100ms and he would have been fine in the left lane. He went on the outside lane (racing line) on purpose, to keep his speed as high as possible. He did not care about a safe re-entry at all.
Vettel is lying. If Hamilton had gone for the inside line, he would have to compromise his entry so much he would be much slower than Vettel's car blazing out of the corner to the full extent of the wall. There's a reason the racing line goes to the wall in that corner normally.

When Ham was judging Vettel's trajectory he must have thought "Vettel will try to enter safely and keep to the inside line so I can pass him fast on the outside". If he tried to go on the inside, Vettel could block him easily and be safe by the rules too. Predicting car trajectory is not easy unless the car has blocked wheels or spins, it won't go straight.

[dans79]

Bundle groans immediately at 4:30 in that highlight reel.

Thus, it's completely unrealistic for the following driver to predict what the compromised cars going to do, because the driver in the compromised car has way too much input on to where it's going.

This is reduced on grass.

You completely ignored the question I asked!

[roon]

Bundle groans immediately at 4:30 in that highlight reel.

Thus, it's completely unrealistic for the following driver to predict what the compromised cars going to do, because the driver in the compromised car has way too much input on to where it's going.

This is reduced on grass.

You completely ignored the question I asked!

Was already answered in previous posts. I said twice before it could have been down to traction or reaction limits. If not limited by those, then it may well be considered an error to choose to drive toward the area between the wall-bound car and the wall.

[V12-POWER]

Yup exactly. The fake news narration will continue as it has sway with some fans.

People have commented here that the penalty was too harsh. I disagree. It wasn't harsh enough perhaps.
We would do well to remember what happened to Schumacher in 1997 when he was stripped of ALL his points and basically banned from the championship ladder for this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=001m8vW9-fs
And here's the text of the story:
https://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns01331.html

Vettel has done more than enough over the past couple of years to imitate his "role model" and has gotten off way too lightly. And this has emboldened some of the fans too, who exhibit bad behavior.

Good job comparing a 100% deliberate crash that is obvious and happened on track, also dont forget it was a move for the championship. Vettel movements to the right don't seem deliberate at all, specially because his counter steering was almost full lock and the rear wasn't planted to the ground, It all happened on the transition of grass to the asphalt, when you make such movements with the steering wheel it means one thing, the car wasn't there. So whoever who is saying he went straight to the wall on purpose is wrong. Or do you really think you're going to go almost full lock to veer to one side? Really? People here underestimate these cars or think they have 900 degree steering. So sad for a "technical" site

I mean, im not a fan of anyone myself but damn some people here do like to say nonsense things.

The only reasonable argument is safe rejoining. This doesnt change the fact current rules are silly if they wont allow situations like this one, in a racing sport, might as well have an "excuse me" button to let other drivers pass "safely"

Spare us your [sad for a "technical" site] crocodile tears.
You know damn well if Vettel did not accelerate so much right upon entering the racetrack he would be able to enter it safely and not oversteer so much. Also his last move to the right was very deliberate indeed and meant to push Hamilton to the wall and crash if necessary. Vettel has done this before, even in the pits once.
(Also note I didn't say this incident alone was equivalent to Schumacher's, I said there's a pattern there of Vettel making bad choices and that FIA punishments today are rather light compared to the past. Some commentators seem to think the opposite, but they are wrong.)

Even the maligned Schumacher eventually admitted guilt and apologized. Whether it was for pushing Barrichelo to the wall or for 1997 controversy or 1994. Vettel has not been punished properly and hasn't made amends.
In my book Vettel is a childish black sheep and not one of the greats. And he's leading many fans down a dark path too.

Where did Vettel accelerate on the grass? I can’t seem to hear it watching the onboard. If he did try to go faster then we should be able to hear it.

He didn’t even touch the throttle while he was on the grass. A small throttle input is enough to make the rear wheels spin and rev the hell up the engine.

Hamilton was well before the apex when Vettel went off...He had a chance had he backed off a little, instead he adhered to push and found himself locked up behind Vettel. Not putting the blame on him though, I would have done the same I guess.

But here’s the thing, Vettel move to the right was gonna happen anyway, the countersteering movement was necessary and for some reason people say it was on purpose.
Why do I say this? Because if you just need to go from left side to right side you don’t turn the wheel almost full lock if you’re in control of the car or if the car/tires are in the operating window.

It seems to me this wasn’t intentional. No throttle/brake inputs from the driver before countersteering, makes it more obvious he wasn’t in total control much less in a position to veer right on purpose.

[ringo]

There was no inside line for Hamilton to take. This is BS from Vettel and i am suprised people are believing him on this.
Watch an overhead video. Hamilton would be an idiot to drive towards a car that is sliding onto the track.
A left turn from Hamilton would have resulted in a nasty accident in all iterations of whatever vettel would do coming onto the track.
Hamilton did the best thing of driving away from Vettel. The problem is vettel drove towards hamilton. So much so that Hamilton had to hit the brakes.
If you force another driver to hit the brakes on the racing line on corner exit, clearly that's an unsafe situation hence the penalty.
Why is the discussion still going on about something so clear as day?
Vettel ballsed up the race as usual when he has Hamilton behind. We have seen this so many times. If he didn't crack on lap 48, there were over 20 laps for him to crack. It was inevitable.