2019 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal June 7-9

[zac510]

I feel like it should be mandatory to watch 12 Angry Men before commenting upon any of the stewards decisions

[LM10]

https://streamable.com/snhp

https://i.redd.it/lkmgqtfkwd331.png

https://twitter.com/MarioAndretti/statu ... 28832?s=20

https://i.redd.it/aukojefmbe331.jpg

https://streamable.com/m9yis

Thank you very much for this nice summary. Nothing more to say, really.

I did not see any ex-racer who supported the stewards decision. It tells a lot about the decision itself.

Me neither. You know why? Because they know exactly what they are talking about.

[GrizzleBoy]

First of all, can anyone show me an ex celebrity driver posting the telemetry they saw to make their armchair stewarding decision?

There sure all have their emotions and opinions, but I'd be grateful to see the DATA required to make stewarding decisions in these situations that they used.

Anyway....

There's a motorsports article where it is explained that the stewards carefully looked at all of Vettels actions AFTER he rejoined the track, including him looking to his right to see Lewis was about to pass, likely his gas/brake telemetry and his steering angle.

If the sequence of events is:

-look right, see Ham
-stamp on gas
-turn wheel right and block road
-proceed to purposefully squeeze other car till all wheels are off track.

Then the stewards probably have every right to penalise him.

Stamping on the gas WHILE looking at a car on track approaching you, while admitting you had no control over the car....

Causing another car to have to stamp on the brake in an Acceleration zone, because you apparently were so out of control and LUCKY to not hit the wall that you stamped on the gas before you even straightened up the car or were in full control of it?

But really though, who when they are "almost about to crash into a wall" has time to be checking their mirrors and ACCELERATING aggressively to the point where you spin up your rears???

Don't people usually brake to avoid a collision, like Ham did?

When you think about all of the excuses made, plus whatever telemetry and camera angles were available and the timing of all of Sebs inputs on the car, it likely all smelled like bullshit to the stewards.

[zeph]

..............

When you think about all of the excuses made, plus whatever telemetry and camera angles were available and the timing of all of Sebs inputs on the car, it likely all smelled like bullshit to the stewards.

Quite right, apparently...

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14399 ... y-decision

[roon]

After the race show on sky sports, Ted's notebook, Ted started with reading of the rules stating when rejoining the track whether you are in control of your car or not, you must leave a cars width when someone is a portion alongside your car. This according to Ted is in the rulebook.

If that's the case, they still were not alongside each other when Seb rejoined the track as Lew approached. If that's what's meant by "...a portion alongside..."

[ubuysa]

It's clearly ridicualous for any of us to try and second guess Vettel. He was racing, he wasn't changing lanes on the freeway. He made a mistake and left the track, and knowing exactly where Hamilton was, and how close he was, he rejoined as fast as he could in order to retain the lead. Perfectly understandable, I'm sure most of us would have done the same thing in the heat of that moment.

But what he did was contrary to the rules - as he well knows. Of course, had he returned to the track as he should have done, Hamilton would have passed him. Vettel even said as much. But that's what happens when you make a mistake. No driver should expect in a close race such as that to go off track having missed a braking point and not pay a price. The price he should have paid was to lose the lead and then fight to get it back (how good would that have been to watch?) but he didn't and so the stewards (rightly) made him pay a different price.

[Restomaniac]

..............

When you think about all of the excuses made, plus whatever telemetry and camera angles were available and the timing of all of Sebs inputs on the car, it likely all smelled like bullshit to the stewards.

Quite right, apparently...

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14399 ... y-decision

So in other words they think Vettel just thought ‘screw it I’m taking the racing line!’.

[Just_a_fan]

Come on, there was not one real passing maneuver... not even one. Ham was not even trying to pass as he was not close enough. It is not racing for me and as I saw in the last few years not for others too. This is the reason why FIA is trying to spice up the races artificially, with drs and the like.

Ah, you think "racing" means "overtaking". I can see why you're annoyed then.

For me, "racing" is exactly what we saw in Canada - two guys pushing hard, one trying to force the mistake, the other trying to resist. If the wall hadn't been there on the outside of the chicane, Hamilton would have powered past Vettel following the latter's mistake. That was the only thing missing, really.

[zeph]

Intrigued, I just watched the replay a few times. It is clear Vettel steers to the right again once he has rejoined the track. His car wasn't even that out of control on the grass. If he had simply gone straight once he was back on the track he would have left sufficient room for Hamilton to pass. But I understand it's racing instinct, keep the other guy behind, so I don't blame him.

In the 1980's this would certainly not have been penalized. From a sporting perspective, it sucks. And during the race I certainly didn't see anything wrong with it. But scrutinizing it on replay, I get it.

[Restomaniac]

Come on, there was not one real passing maneuver... not even one. Ham was not even trying to pass as he was not close enough. It is not racing for me and as I saw in the last few years not for others too. This is the reason why FIA is trying to spice up the races artificially, with drs and the like.

Ah, you think "racing" means "overtaking". I can see why you're annoyed then.

For me, "racing" is exactly what we saw in Canada - two guys pushing hard, one trying to force the mistake, the other trying to resist. If the wall hadn't been there on the outside of the chicane, Hamilton would have powered past Vettel following the latter's mistake. That was the only thing missing, really.

Or he would have put a wheel on the grass and taken them both out!

[zeph]

But what he did was contrary to the rules - as he well knows. Of course, had he returned to the track as he should have done, Hamilton would have passed him. Vettel even said as much. But that's what happens when you make a mistake. No driver should expect in a close race such as that to go off track having missed a braking point and not pay a price. The price he should have paid was to lose the lead and then fight to get it back (how good would that have been to watch?) but he didn't and so the stewards (rightly) made him pay a different price.

Agreed.

[Just_a_fan]

Thank you very much for this nice summary. Nothing more to say, really.

I did not see any ex-racer who supported the stewards decision. It tells a lot about the decision itself.

Me neither. You know why? Because they know exactly what they are talking about.

They were watching the same feed we were. The stewards had access to more information. Thus, the stewards are the ones that know what they're talking about.

It seems that people are happy to throw stewards under the bus these days. It's kind of reminiscent of politicians calling judges "enemy of the people" etc.

[Just_a_fan]

After the race show on sky sports, Ted's notebook, Ted started with reading of the rules stating when rejoining the track whether you are in control of your car or not, you must leave a cars width when someone is a portion alongside your car. This according to Ted is in the rulebook.

If that's the case, they still were not alongside each other when Seb rejoined the track as Lew approached. If that's what's meant by "...a portion alongside..."

https://i.imgur.com/6Ac67zv.png

https://i.imgur.com/HQBUnAc.png

You can clearly see the racing line in those photos. You can see Hamilton moving slightly off line to give Vettel room to return to the track. Vettel then crossed the racing line causing Hamilton to have to brake on the exit. Causing another driver to have to take avoiding action whilst you rejoin is straight-up contrary to the rules. Ergo, the penalty because Vettel forced Hamilton to avoid him.

[Just_a_fan]

Come on, there was not one real passing maneuver... not even one. Ham was not even trying to pass as he was not close enough. It is not racing for me and as I saw in the last few years not for others too. This is the reason why FIA is trying to spice up the races artificially, with drs and the like.

Ah, you think "racing" means "overtaking". I can see why you're annoyed then.

For me, "racing" is exactly what we saw in Canada - two guys pushing hard, one trying to force the mistake, the other trying to resist. If the wall hadn't been there on the outside of the chicane, Hamilton would have powered past Vettel following the latter's mistake. That was the only thing missing, really.

Or he would have put a wheel on the grass and taken them both out!

Perhaps, and it would have been Vettel's fault just as it was Rosberg's...

[roon]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14399 ... y-decision

Raikkonen-Verstappen incident at 1:02 in the video below. VER incurs the same 5 second penalty, which the article claims set a precident. However, VER and RAI were alongside each other upon VER's reentry. HAM and VET were not alongside when the VET rejoined.