2019 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal June 7-9

[izzy]

And that's the thing, isn't it? If Vettel and Hamilton were fairly equal points and this happened, people would be more accepting of it. But because Hamilton has opened his lead to 1+ / 2+ DNFs ahead of his teammate / Vettel, they're all up in arms. The usual "game over, man, game over" shouts.

The reality is that there's still a long way to go in this season. A long way.

It must've been so frustrating for Ferrari fans. Seb brilliantly gets pole, Charles is 3rd, and in the first stint Seb drove away and they must all have been thinking "yessss at last!!!" and then guess what along comes their nemesis AGAIN, and on top of the Mercedes tyres, Mercedes engine rules and all the other paranoia triggers the stewards join in the conspiracy!!

and so yes most of the season to come but still, even when Ferarri turn up with a better car, there's Lewis giving them the feeling, like Monza last year and the others, that somehow he'll still come out on top. and it wasn't quite binary undeniable that Seb chose to block (tho i thought it was pretty obvious)

and obviously all the neutrals are desperate for a Ferrari win as well. so there's a lot of motivation and emotion wishing it'd been legal

[LM10]

If you think that the space Hamilton left was enough, then it's you who needs to go back and watch the Monaco race again. It's visible there was not enough space, but on top of that the line Hamilton forced Ric into was slippery because it was wet, as you've mentioned already. Ric even slided a bit.

To sum it up: Hamilton made a mistake, Ric kept his racing line, but was not only cut by Hamilton, but also forced to the wet side of the track (making him slide) and not given enough space too.

Yea... this surely was a completely different kind of incident and Hamilton was doing everything right, as ever. Just because.

So now you want Hamilton penalised for pushing someone on to the wet part of the track ? boo hoo hoo

Lewis left just enough space, Ric backed out of it as he was on the wet patch and it looked like the door was about to shut but it didnt actually shut.

Even if Hamilton left enough space afterwards, the action happened before. He rejoined the track and forced Ricciardo, who was on his racing line, to brake. Otherwise he would have crashed into him.

[Just_a_fan]

Even if Hamilton left enough space afterwards, the action happened before. He rejoined the track and forced Ricciardo, who was on his racing line, to brake. Otherwise he would have crashed into him.

So. What. ?.

The issue is what Vettel did this race, not what someone else did years ago.

[LM10]

Michael Schmidt: "All drivers I've asked after the race confirmed Vettel's words: To safely drive back on the track, Vettel needed to choose that line."

All ex-drivers, current drivers (they know the best what Vettel was going through behind the wheel) and even the Sky F1 coverage do have the same opinion. Who don't? Peter Windsor, and obviously the Mercedes team including a part of their fans (not even all of them).

even if, he still he gained an advantage (and he could have braked and re-entered safely, there was lots of free grass to the left) and it was very dangerous and it was clearly blocking with a massive speed differntial (even if necessary to enter "safely"...)...
( I already saw HAM comitted to the overtake on the live feed onboard, only to HAM's reaction this wasn't a nasty crash).

Bold part: As did Hamilton in Monaco 2016 by doing an unsafe re-entry and forcing Ricciardo to slam on the brakes in tricky conitions (wet).

As for the rest of your analysis, I better believe ex- or current F1 drivers. But thank you!

[roon]

If he had simply gone straight once he was back on the track he would have left sufficient room for Hamilton to pass.

He did go straight, that's the problem. Some suggest the Ferrari should have immediately hooked up its front tires right after the grass and turned the car more to the left in order to stay on the left hand side of the track so as not to intersect the racing line. But physics doesn't agree, and physics are being read as a defending move here.

No. Watch the replays and read the Autosport article I linked to. Vettel steers to the right. Understandable, it's what any racing driver would do in that situation, you want to defend your position. And I probably would not have penalized him for that.

But either way, the call is correct. If he was indeed not in control, it would still have been an unsafe re-entry. And if he was in control, it is obtaining an unfair advantage.

But yeah, in the 1980's nobody would have been punished for something like that. Maybe it's time to re-evaluate the rules.

Yes, turned/veered right, but only after traction was regained. The overhead video shows the Ferrari traversing a straight line through the grass and then continuing that trajectory partway across the track surface--as one does in that situation. Prioritize regaining control, then turn. The penalty was for the re-entry, not for defending. By the letter of the rules it was an unsafe re-entry. But what seems to rub people the wrong way is that the re-entry wasn't intentional, it was a byproduct of the slide. The end of a chain of events.

I think thats why Button made a point to criticize the rule, not the drivers nor the stewards.

[LM10]

Even if Hamilton left enough space afterwards, the action happened before. He rejoined the track and forced Ricciardo, who was on his racing line, to brake. Otherwise he would have crashed into him.

So. What. ?.

The issue is what Vettel did this race, not what someone else did years ago.

Don't you see the similarities? Both re-entering in an unsafe way, forcing the other driver to brake and this way gaining an advantage. In case of Vettel, it was a struggle to even keep the car under control (the only way to not spin, as confirmed by several other drivers).

Difference: One got away without a penalty and the other got one. Consequent and fair penalization?

[roon]

...he could have braked and re-entered safely, there was lots of free grass to the left...

How would one do that on grass with slicks at these speeds?

[Wynters]

and Mexico, while he gained lasting advantage by avoiding T1(if let's say Schumacher did that, lots of people would say he did it on porpoise), they are mostly irrelevant.

On what basis do you claim he gained a 'lasting advantage' when all available evidence shows he did not?

To quote Charlie:- “You can see that Lewis makes a small mistake at the beginning, cuts across, gains significant track advantage but then sets about giving that back immediately.”

“And you can see on the straight between turns three and four He backs off to 80% throttle to give that advantage back because obviously he’d got a significant advantage there

“And then about a minute later the Safety Car deployed and that advantage gone completely. So the stewards felt no lasting advantage.”

[NathanOlder]

Are we going to talk about Ferrari hanging Leclerc out to dry again with a garbage strategy?

No? cool

They had him go long and have fresher tires for later on in case there was a SC. So they split their 2 cars to cover for both eventualities (sc vs no sc). Lec had fallen back sufficiently already before the leaders had their stops, so it was only logical to go for a different plan with him; I don't blame Ferrari here.

I thought Leclerc was about 2.5 behind Lewis when Lewis stopped ??

[FrukostScones]

Are we going to talk about Ferrari hanging Leclerc out to dry again with a garbage strategy?

No? cool

They had him go long and have fresher tires for later on in case there was a SC. So they split their 2 cars to cover for both eventualities (sc vs no sc). Lec had fallen back sufficiently already before the leaders had their stops, so it was only logical to go for a different plan with him; I don't blame Ferrari here.

I thought Leclerc was about 2.5 behind Lewis when Lewis stopped ??

and 11 sec behind HAM (and VER) after his stop .

[Wynters]

Bold part: As did Hamilton in Monaco 2016 by doing an unsafe re-entry and forcing Ricciardo to slam on the brakes in tricky conitions (wet).

As for the rest of your analysis, I better believe ex- or current F1 drivers. But thank you!

But Ricciardo didn't "slam on the brakes" until they were past the chicane (otherwise he surely wouldn't have been gaining on a Mercedes that was accelerating) and, once they were past the chicane, Hamilton left more than a car's width of room (meaning he wasn't "forcing" Ricciardo to do anything at that point). Where do you see Ricciardo being forced to slam on the brakes before that?

As for ex/current F1 drivers, 1) Are they all saying that Vettel safely rejoined the track (not whether he had any choice in how he rejoined, but whether it was a safe situation)? And 2) Do they have access to the telemetry and camera angles that the stewards had?

Michael Schmidt: "All drivers I've asked after the race confirmed Vettel's words: To safely drive back on the track, Vettel needed to choose that line." You realise that this quote does not invalidate the penalty?

[Just_a_fan]

Don't you see the similarities? […]

Difference: One got away without a penalty and the other got one. Consequent and fair penalization?

The difference is that Vettel's rejoin was unsafe as he drove across the full width of the track and effectively put Hamilton in to the wall if Hamilton didn't brake hard. Hamilton's rejoin left a car's width and Ric decided better of trying to force his way past. The key is that Hamilton left room.

A better comparison to Vettel's off is that of Max against Kimi - if you really must look back. There, Max went all the way across the track and pushed Kimi off track. Considered an "unsafe rejoin" and he was penalised 5 seconds. Just like Vettel.

[outer_bongolia]

Michael Schmidt: "All drivers I've asked after the race confirmed Vettel's words: To safely drive back on the track, Vettel needed to choose that line."

All ex-drivers, current drivers (they know the best what Vettel was going through behind the wheel) and even the Sky F1 coverage do have the same opinion. Who don't? Peter Windsor, and obviously the Mercedes team including a part of their fans (not even all of them).

F1 races are done on tracks. They are not on “tracks and the nearby land”. If you get all four tires off the track, you are no longer a part of the race (unless you are forced off, but that’s another topic). The cars on track have priority over those who are not. You can’t just cut a corner and jump and block the competitor.

In the past, I got penalized for getting all tires off the track. I didn’t jump in and block the car behind me. That would have been the unsafe reentry. One of course does block and hope that the penalty will not prevent from winning the race. That’s a gamble one takes.

So... Vettel did the reasonable, but definitely illegal move.

If I were FIA, I would’ve further penalized Vettel for failing to park his car at the designated spot and messing with the display.

[tpeman]

Even if Hamilton left enough space afterwards, the action happened before. He rejoined the track and forced Ricciardo, who was on his racing line, to brake. Otherwise he would have crashed into him.

So. What. ?.

The issue is what Vettel did this race, not what someone else did years ago.

The rules regarding such a thing were the same in 2016. Consistency is an important part of the fair-play.

Speaking of this year and FIA's decisions, there have been much harsher things done (Max vs Sainz in Bahrain) and no penalties have been applied to them. Yet, harsh penalties are given for racing incidents (Kvyat vs McLarens in China). If FIA wants to give strict sanctions, that's fine. But rules should be for everybody.

[Shrieker]

Are we going to talk about Ferrari hanging Leclerc out to dry again with a garbage strategy?

No? cool

They had him go long and have fresher tires for later on in case there was a SC. So they split their 2 cars to cover for both eventualities (sc vs no sc). Lec had fallen back sufficiently already before the leaders had their stops, so it was only logical to go for a different plan with him; I don't blame Ferrari here.

I thought Leclerc was about 2.5 behind Lewis when Lewis stopped ??

That's more or less what I recall as well. At one point he was 4.5+ secs behind tho. Even at 2.5, they had to pit him early (2, realistically 3 laps earlier) just to undercut Hamilton, but Merc would've reacted anyway, requiring an early pit for Vettel too, which wouldn't have been ideal if there was a sc later on. What we should really be talking about is Ferrari being sneaky by not telling Lec that Vet had a penalty. That's really shafting your one driver in favor of the other.