2019 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal June 7-9

[Phil]

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?

No, because that isn't in the rules.

PS: And arguing a different race at a different time under different sporting regulations has no bearing on this race under technically a different rule set. A (perceived) wrong there, doesn't make a wrong here.

[cooken]

The argument from LM10 is that in Monaco 2016 a different/supplemental set of rules should have been available to account for a wet track. From that position, the incidents are even more different and therefore less comparable. So why again is Monaco 2016 relevant?

If a discussion of bespoke rules for wet or changeable conditions racing is warranted, it belongs in its own thread, certainly not in the race thread of a dry race....

[Wynters]

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

Can you give me a straight reason why this move was penalty and Monaco 2016 wasn't? IMHO It's EXACTLY the same.

As has been stated a number of times, Hamilton left comfortably more than a car's width between himself and the edge of the track in Monaco, Vettel left a couple of inches.

That's leaving aside the additional info the stewards from Canada have released about the additional camera angles and telemetry.

Ask yourself this, what evidence would be required for you to agree that Vettel deserved a penalty? Would Japan last year be a good example?

Only 5s for Max in Japan is as much of a farse as it was in Mexico(2016).
But that's off topic.

Oh...

[dans79]

I don't know why the rules are so hard for some to understand. Track conditions don't matter, intent doesn't matter, how much control of their car the driver has doesn't it matter.

The rules are purely measurements and cause/effect, everything else is inconsequential.

[Saxmansaxman]

Correct.^^^^^^^^^^^

[NathanOlder]

Correct.^^^^^^^^^^^

Yup, but as dans said, it seems far too hard for some to understand, i think the Canada decision was pretty much black and white, it was easy to see straight away the offense, the only difficulty could have been the severity of the penalty but as Max got 5s pen last year for pretty much the same thing, that was made easy too.

[LM10]

The regulation is not hard to understand. What’s hard to understand is why the regulations are how they are.

[cooken]

Actually that part is even easier. For the most part, where a regulation previously didn't exist, there was either a big incident or constant problems occurring that prompted a rule to be introduced.

Eg:
- drivers were weaving side to side on straight, so they added a rule to prevent weaving

Don't know a specific incident or whether it was a culmination, but wouldn't be shocked if the safe track reentry was added after a big crash...

[Dazed1]

Happy 100 pages on this topic. We rock!

[TAG]

The regulation is not hard to understand. What’s hard to understand is why the regulations are how they are.

What you're saying is that you don't accept the results due to the regulations. Start a thread and argue that.

[LM10]

The regulation is not hard to understand. What’s hard to understand is why the regulations are how they are.

What you're saying is that you don't accept the results due to the regulations. Start a thread and argue that.

I was referring to the fact that the regulations for dry conditions are the exactly same for wet conditions. Utterly stupid.

[TAG]

The regulation is not hard to understand. What’s hard to understand is why the regulations are how they are.

What you're saying is that you don't accept the results due to the regulations. Start a thread and argue that.

I was referring to the fact that the regulations for dry conditions are the exactly same for wet conditions. Utterly stupid.

Start a thread for that. Because continuing to argue the point here is irrelevant. While you're at it, try to take a stab at how you'd write the rules for different conditions... and what's the different between levels of wetness, would love to know how you'd tackle that so the stewards would have clear direction.

[NathanOlder]

Anyway the Monaco race in 16 was dry at the time of the incident. Everyone had slicks and there was a totally dry line. Or you want to call that wet LM10?

[roon]

He had to brake HARD in order to avoid hitting Vettel...

Would be good to see telemetry or onboard to validate the claim. Nice thing about numbers: they look the same when caps lock is on.

[TAG]

He had to brake HARD in order to avoid hitting Vettel...

Would be good to see telemetry or onboard to validate the claim. Nice thing about numbers: they look the same when caps lock is on.

With all of the commentary you've left in this very thread, you haven't seen it posted? Pay attention man it's been shared. There's also the images of Hamilton's car 3/4 along side Vettel and then Vettel pulls away about four of five car lengthiness in the very next shot. The nice thing about video and images is that it makes nonsensical arguments look foolish, but still this thread was 100 pages long.

Hamilton's braking wasn't under investigation. Wonder why.







There you go, I kept it free of words in all caps so you wouldn't get confused.