2019 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal June 7-9

[TAG]

We should consider that diving into a closing gap between a car, oscillating in yaw across 2/3 of the track after grass, and a wall, was perhaps not the only nor best decision Lew could have made.

Hamilton was committed to the corner when Vettel was off track. If, at any point, Hamilton was required to act to avoid a collision during Vettel's rejoin, it's a penalty to Vettel. That's the rule. Argue the rule, not the penalty.

...

Now, one might argue the rule is wrong, but the penalty is in line with the rule and thus entirely justified.

I agree. Earlier I referenced how Button had a similar view regarding the writing of the rules being the real issue here, if any. The real culprit might be fate. The situation, its timing, its location, its context, who it involved, created a perfect storm. Seems like the most contentious/dramatic event in recent seasons.

No that would have been Baku 2017, as a matter of fact, there a good chance there wouldn't have been Canada 2019 incident if the proper sanctions/penalties had been issued against Vettel then. The stewards then decided not to "ruin the show", sound familiar? The right decision was made this time at least, maybe it will prevent some other bone headed driver incident in the future?

[sosic2121]

Hamilton was committed to the corner when Vettel was off track. If, at any point, Hamilton was required to act to avoid a collision during Vettel's rejoin, it's a penalty to Vettel. That's the rule. Argue the rule, not the penalty.

...

Now, one might argue the rule is wrong, but the penalty is in line with the rule and thus entirely justified.

I agree. Earlier I referenced how Button had a similar view regarding the writing of the rules being the real issue here, if any. The real culprit might be fate. The situation, its timing, its location, its context, who it involved, created a perfect storm. Seems like the most contentious/dramatic event in recent seasons.

No that would have been Baku 2017, as a matter of fact, there a good chance there wouldn't have been Canada 2019 incident if the proper sanctions/penalties had been issued against Vettel then.

Maybe if Hamilton was penalised in 2016 for doing exactly the same thing, then maybe there would be no fuss now.

This way, it's a little awkward.

[TAG]

Maybe if Hamilton was penalised in 2016 for doing exactly the same thing, then maybe there would be no fuss now.

This way, it's a little awkward.

Wow an entire year penalized? At least make an effort to point out which incident? Monaco? It's been discussed ad nauseaum here as to why it was clearly no "exactly the same thing". Unless you can present some revelatory new evidence. Karun on the sky pad?

[sosic2121]

Maybe if Hamilton was penalised in 2016 for doing exactly the same thing, then maybe there would be no fuss now.

This way, it's a little awkward.

Wow an entire year penalized? At least make an effort to point out which incident? Monaco? It's been discussed ad nauseaum here as to why it was clearly no "exactly the same thing". Unless you can present some revelatory new evidence. Karun on the sky pad?

Yes, Monaco. Exactly the same. I'm sorry but I still haven't heard any evidence that prove that it wasn't the same

[Phil]

Sosic, do yourself and us a favor and go back and read the topic. It's there. No good is going to come of it, if you simply ignore what has been posted and start a repeat of the same tireless arguments that were already posted before. If you have a differing view point on the Monaco incident or something new to add, I suggest you go back and reply to those posts and argue them, rather than simply saying "you haven't seen anything". When you do go back, you'll likely come across Turbo's post on both incidents.

Two crucial differences for example that were mentioned was different speeds and the fact that there was a cars width on the outside (not the case at Canada). It may be a technicality, but sometimes, like it or not, decisions are made on such technicalities.

[sosic2121]

Sosic, do yourself and us a favor and go back and read the topic. It's there. No good is going to come of it, if you simply ignore what has been posted and start a repeat of the same tireless arguments that were already posted before. If you have a differing view point on the Monaco incident or something new to add, I suggest you go back and reply to those posts and argue them, rather than simply saying "you haven't seen anything". When you do go back, you'll likely come across Turbo's post on both incidents.

Two crucial differences for example that were mentioned was different speeds and the fact that there was a cars width on the outside (not the case at Canada). It may be a technicality, but sometimes, like it or not, decisions are made on such technicalities.

When you say cars width, are we talking about wall or about white line?

[Phil]

The track is defined by the white line per the rules.

I also think that the stewards at Monaco 2016 took into account that Ricciardo would not have passed Hamilton on the right side in that spot even if there had been more space because of the wet patches, the fact that Ricciardo demonstratably “had a moment” in which he lost traction and the next corner/chicane being a left hander (Lewis would have been on the inside) and the natural line he took was the one with the best grip. I’d argue circumstance just didnt work out and despite Lewis cutting the chicane (whilst in full control), Ricciardo and the circumstance never made passing a realistic opportunity.

At Canada however, if there had been room, Hamilton would have easily been through.

[LM10]

The track is defined by the white line per the rules.

I also think that the stewards at Monaco 2016 took into account that Ricciardo would not have passed Hamilton on the right side in that spot even if there had been more space because of the wet patches, the fact that Ricciardo demonstratably “had a moment” in which he lost traction and the next corner/chicane being a left hander (Lewis would have been on the inside) and the natural line he took was the one with the best grip. I’d argue circumstance just didnt work out and despite Lewis cutting the chicane (whilst in full control), Ricciardo and the circumstance never made passing a realistic opportunity.

At Canada however, if there had been room, Hamilton would have easily been through.

Did the stewards also take in account that the space Hamilton gave Ricciardo was absolutely meaningless because it was wet and Ricciardo had no chance passing anyway? If it was dry he probably would have been able to pass, since he had the speed advantage, but needed to brake eventually due to the slippery condition.

Like I told already, it's just stupid applying the same rules in different track conditions.

[sosic2121]

The track is defined by the white line per the rules.

So, if hamilton persisted, and successfully made a move around Vettel, he would have to give the place back because he was off track?

[Restomaniac]

The track is defined by the white line per the rules.

I also think that the stewards at Monaco 2016 took into account that Ricciardo would not have passed Hamilton on the right side in that spot even if there had been more space because of the wet patches, the fact that Ricciardo demonstratably “had a moment” in which he lost traction and the next corner/chicane being a left hander (Lewis would have been on the inside) and the natural line he took was the one with the best grip. I’d argue circumstance just didnt work out and despite Lewis cutting the chicane (whilst in full control), Ricciardo and the circumstance never made passing a realistic opportunity.

At Canada however, if there had been room, Hamilton would have easily been through.

With regard to Monaco ‘16 there is that however I think it’s more basic than that. Monaco/wall=Canada/white line and Hamilton DID leave a cars width to the wall, the fact it was unusable is neither here nor there as it being usable isn’t in the rules but a cars width is.

[NathanOlder]

The track is defined by the white line per the rules.

So, if hamilton persisted, and successfully made a move around Vettel, he would have to give the place back because he was off track?

And why was he off the track..... Errr

Because Vettel pushed him off the track. Which if you haven't read already is completely against the rules.

As Phil pointed out, Monaco 16, Ricciardo was left a cars width, the weather doesn't matter, wet or dry, you must leave a cars width.

Track limits in Monaco are the white lines (where there are any, like turn 1, nouvelle chicane, swimming pool) if no white lines then its the barrier.

Canada track limits are pretty much white lines all the way, its just the drivers often go out as far as the wall with 2 wheels just about on the track which is what the rules allow.

[Restomaniac]

The track is defined by the white line per the rules.

So, if hamilton persisted, and successfully made a move around Vettel, he would have to give the place back because he was off track?

And why was he off the track..... Errr

Because Vettel pushed him off the track. Which if you haven't read already is completely against the rules.

As Phil pointed out, Monaco 16, Ricciardo was left a cars width, the weather doesn't matter, wet or dry, you must leave a cars width.

Track limits in Monaco are the white lines (where there are any, like turn 1, nouvelle chicane, swimming pool) if no white lines then its the barrier.

Canada track limits are pretty much white lines all the way, its just the drivers often go out as far as the wall with 2 wheels just about on the track which is what the rules allow.

Exactly, people are muddying the waters (Including some on SKY who know better) so as to avoid seeing what is actually quite a clear cut case looking at the rules.

[sosic2121]

so hamilton was within track when he decided to fall back?

[oT v1]

No, I don’t have the picture to post but it’s in the thread, it’s close whether his inside wheels are still on the track....but his outside wheels are getting friendly with the wall.

A lot less than he left RIC

[TAG]

so hamilton was within track when he decided to fall back?

It doesn't matter where Hamilton's car was. He had to brake HARD in order to avoid hitting Vettel because Vettel drove him off the track. You're asking question instead of reading the thread. Why don't you do that instead and then as it's been suggested to you, add your commentary on why you think what you're asking now, after 100 pages of discussion, hasn't been brought up before?