Formula One has seen yet another controversial result of a Grand Prix as Lewis Hamiton inherited the Canadian GP race win after a controversial 5s penalty for leader Sebastian Vettel. An infuriated Vettel was classified second, ahead of Leclerc in third.
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.
Racing means a lot more, then we saw in Canada. Means pushing a lot, making and forcing mistakes and fighting for the positions, sometimes aggressively. Even means touching wheels. Squeezing the limits. Inventing new and unexpected strategies. Being creative, aggressive, tricky and intelligent at the same time race craft wise.
Following another car in around 1 sec for some 35-40 laps without even just one passing experiment is not what I call racing. It is called present days F1.
Actually in all the rest of the motor sport events racing means what I described. Since the Pirelli/turbo/Merc era F1 became something completely different. I am sure it causes harm on the long term.
All this talk about the 5 second penalty kind of glosses over the fact Ferrari (or so it seems) screwed up again by not putting enough fuel in Vettel's car and making him lift and coast. I would think the low drag Ferrari would be lighter on fuel use than the Mercedes anyway..
We'll never know if absent the penalty Hamilton could have overtaken Vettel because the penalty changed the risk/reward equation to the point it only made sense to overtake given a clear cut chance.
If it was a bad idea, why didn't Leclerc undercut to force Hamilton to do it?
If it was a bad idea, it wouldn't have forced Hamilton to pit. As everyone would have known it was a bad idea
In which case, Hamilton pits 4-5 laps later and is now stuck behind Leclerc whilst Vettel drives off into the distance. Net win for Ferrari, even after Hamilton passes Leclerc to take 2nd back. After all, who would be pressuring a slow-at-the-end Leclerc for 3rd? Bottas? He couldn't even stay in Leclerc's pit window.
How does Hamilton end up behind Leclerc ? you've lost me. If the undercut doesn't work then Leclerc cant force Hamilton to pit, so if Hamilton doesn't pit how does he end up behind Leclerc.
GoLandoGo
Lewis v2.0
King George has arrived.
New found love for GT racing with Assetto Corsa Competizione on PS5 & PC
The way things stand, there are 2 ways you can look at it:
-From a regulatory and maybe safety and fairness viewpoint, you can argue Hamilton was hindered by what you can call a "none-competing" car. Leaving the track means you are driving outside the track and therefore not competing in the race for that period of time. In that regard, drivers have been punished left, right and centre during practice and qualifying as when they are on a slow lap, not competing, and impete somebody else, they usually get some sort of penalty for that. Now, Vettel is perfectly allowed to rejoin the competition. But rejoining competition has to be done in a safe and orderly fashion, without hindering someone who is already in competition, which was Hamilton. I think nobody can argue Hamilton got hindered there: he took the racing line, but had to clearly reduce speed and take avoiding action.
I also see talk about that the competing driver has to have its wheels alongside in orde to be able to qualify it as unsafe. That is not true. Sporting Regulation 27.3 states that rejoining "may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining a lasting advantage". That is for the record a double requirement, so meeting one condition does not exclude the need to achieve the other. There is also a catch-all rule, 27.4 "At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person."
-From a situational, drivers and spectacle standpoint, you can argue the following: Vettel crossed the track across the grass and it is reasonable to assume he slithered back on the track, with snaps of over- and understeer requiring him to constantly make corrections. I do think myself he ended up blocking Hamilton in an unintended fashion. He was a bit of a passenger. Furthermore, there is something to be said about that the penalty, irrespective of it being correctly applied or not, took the tension out of the closing stages of the race. Some thoughts should be going to all those people buying these extremely pricy tickets and them having an exciting end to the race "getting robbed", again irrespective of the rules being correctly applied. I think a lot of them were disgruntled that the offense seemed rather light (which is subjective of course), with no damage or extreme disadvantage done to Hamilton. Having this rather minor offense ruin the race will make a racer's heart bleed.
In the end, I think the regulations were applied correctly. Yes, Vettel couldn't do much once he made the mistake and had to travel across the grass, but it does remain his mistake and thus it is his responsibility to enter competition again in a safe manner. It remains his mistake. When you or I make a mistake in society, we also have to take responsibility for that. That's how things go. Vettel has unintentionally hindered Hamilton, but he still hindered him.
That being said, it is rather sad to see a potential good end being ruined like that. It really was an anti climax. Hamilton did try to overtake Vettel, but I think nobody cared about that anymore since the end result was already determined. Mind that the stewards are certainly not to blame here. They are not there to ensure a good show, they are there to enforce the rules and ensure safety. It's the sport's leading body that will have to think very carefully how to from there, because this is a razor thin edge to balance on: will they favour the racing and spectacle in the future, but also open up pandora's box by potentially allowing unsafe returns to the track, or will they keep it as this is and leave themselves open for more of these race-ending situations and also criticism towards inconsistency? Some people here point towards Monaco 2016. Although not the same, it has enough similarities to question where the fine line is.
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...
Don’t be silly it would have been Hamilton’s fault for daring to be a racer and trying to pass.
Too much words was about mistakes, psychologic, judgements, stewards.. My opinion - this season ended in Australian GP 2019. Ferrari must create a car that brings huge aero performance and engine power/ fuel economy. Then even with 5sec penalty win is available. After 1-2 in a row from Mercedes this year we see how Ferrari came first and got second place - it's not so problem, main root of problems - SF90 concept and strategic faults.
The way things stand, there are 2 ways you can look at it:
-From a regulatory and maybe safety and fairness viewpoint, you can argue Hamilton was hindered by what you can call a "none-competing" car. Leaving the track means you are driving outside the track and therefore not competing in the race for that period of time. In that regard, drivers have been punished left, right and centre during practice and qualifying as when they are on a slow lap, not competing, and impete somebody else, they usually get some sort of penalty for that. Now, Vettel is perfectly allowed to rejoin the competition. But rejoining competition has to be done in a safe and orderly fashion, without hindering someone who is already in competition, which was Hamilton. I think nobody can argue Hamilton got hindered there: he took the racing line, but had to clearly reduce speed and take avoiding action.
I also see talk about that the competing driver has to have its wheels alongside in orde to be able to qualify it as unsafe. That is not true. Sporting Regulation 27.3 states that rejoining "may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining a lasting advantage". That is for the record a double requirement, so meeting one condition does not exclude the need to achieve the other. There is also a catch-all rule, 27.4 "At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person."
-From a situational, drivers and spectacle standpoint, you can argue the following: Vettel crossed the track across the grass and it is reasonable to assume he slithered back on the track, with snaps of over- and understeer requiring him to constantly make corrections. I do think myself he ended up blocking Hamilton in an unintended fashion. He was a bit of a passenger. Furthermore, there is something to be said about that the penalty, irrespective of it being correctly applied or not, took the tension out of the closing stages of the race. Some thoughts should be going to all those people buying these extremely pricy tickets and them having an exciting end to the race "getting robbed", again irrespective of the rules being correctly applied. I think a lot of them were disgruntled that the offense seemed rather light (which is subjective of course), with no damage or extreme disadvantage done to Hamilton. Having this rather minor offense ruin the race will make a racer's heart bleed.
In the end, I think the regulations were applied correctly. Yes, Vettel couldn't do much once he made the mistake and had to travel across the grass, but it does remain his mistake and thus it is his responsibility to enter competition again in a safe manner. It remains his mistake. When you or I make a mistake in society, we also have to take responsibility for that. That's how things go. Vettel has unintentionally hindered Hamilton, but he still hindered him.
That being said, it is rather sad to see a potential good end being ruined like that. It really was an anti climax. Hamilton did try to overtake Vettel, but I think nobody cared about that anymore since the end result was already determined. Mind that the stewards are certainly not to blame here. They are not there to ensure a good show, they are there to enforce the rules and ensure safety. It's the sport's leading body that will have to think very carefully how to from there, because this is a razor thin edge to balance on: will they favour the racing and spectacle in the future, but also open up pandora's box by potentially allowing unsafe returns to the track, or will they keep it as this is and leave themselves open for more of these race-ending situations and also criticism towards inconsistency? Some people here point towards Monaco 2016. Although not the same, it has enough similarities to question where the fine line is.
I struggle to argue with any of this. Although I would say that Vettel didn’t need to pin the throttle coming off the grass. But that’s a minor point.
At this point in the conversation, I think it is best to refer to a quote from one of the greats, so that we might take pause, and re-evaluate our positions, and question our assumptions.
By being a racing driver means you are racing with other people. And if you no longer drive toward cars that are sliding around on a race track after they were just on the grass, you are no longer a racing driver because we are competing, we are competing to win.
I do find it slightly distasteful when you have drivers (some actual former stewards!) throwing hand grenades from the sidelines. It’s easy to spout off when your not the one having to enforced a black and white rule.
I think the squirt of throttle is the most damning part of all of this. Vettel was off track, and went across the grass. Had he just kept off the power, he would've been able to rejoin in a safe manner. instead, he opened the throttle to try to stay ahead of Hamilton and in doing so made his return to track unsafe.
Drivers usually join the track from the pit lane why do such moves never deemed as safety hazard even though some of them are very tight and looks suspect. I mean were you draw the line what matrices are they using which can clearly identify and differentiate incident btn good and bad
For Liberty Media and FIA, the most important thing is for Mercedes to stay in F1. At Any costs . The issue of tires that favor Mercedes is another matter. In 2013, Mercedes organized an illegal tire test and did not suffer any consequences.
Ok but why is Mercedes so important I thought Ferrari was the chosen one but also has the most fans i think mclaren & Williams also number of fans can rival that of merc
