I agree with Dennis and the also expert analysis of the announcers and all the replays that were made available to the public both during and after the race. He had no where else to go based on speed and location/track design. He sure as heck wasn’t stopping on the grass and stopping on the track once off the grass would have cause an even bigger safety issue.
MONTREAL -- Ferrari has lodged an intention to appeal the stewards' decision that cost Sebastian Vettel victory at the Canadian Grand Prix. Vettel crossed the line in first place in Canada but was penalised five seconds for an incident on lap 48 of the grand prix, dropping him behind Lewis Hamilton in the final classification. After making a mistake in Turn 3 and cutting the apex at Turn 4, the race stewards judged that Vettel rejoined the track in a unsafe manner and forced Hamilton off the track When he was informed of his penalty over team radio, Vettel complained that "they [the stewards] are stealing the race from us." After the race, Ferrari confirmed it had lodged its intention to appeal the decision. By announcing its intention to appeal, Ferrari has 96 hours to lodge its formal appeal in which it would be expected to present new evidence to argue its case. The original stewards' decision was as follows: "The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left the track at Turn 3, rejoined the track at Turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision." The stewards document, which was issued by the FIA shortly after the race, also reminded Ferrari of its right to appeal "certain decisions" under Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules. Technically speaking, Ferrari is not allowed to appeal the penalty under Article 38.3 of the Sporting Regulations, but can appeal the decision to review the offence itself (i.e. rejoining the circuit in an unsafe manner and forcing Hamilton off the track) under Article 38.1.
I agree with the evidence. I hate the rule. I would like to hear a stewards opinion on what Vettel should have/could have done in that exact situation and track location that they penalized him for. I really would. And the “evasive action” that “had” to be performed was for Hamilton to brake. As Vettel said, “It’s his fault if he decides to go that way. If he’d gone to the inside, he’d got passed me”. True statement. However, I believe no one was taking the inside line at that turn all weekend from what free time I was able to watch. I still cannot see what else he could have done considering a drivers mindset of first saving his own car and 2nd, not causing a safety issue. I still stand with Vettel should have been the winner of the Montreal GP. However, I understand what rules are and what they are for and what the stewards are paid to do. If you force yourself to look at the black and white rule book and put yourself in the position of the stewards of which are paid to uphold the rules, technically they did their job to the letter. As Vettel said, “I hope everyone comes back”. Referring to the fans and these “things” getting in the way of racing and the sport.
From my viewpoint seeing Hams onboard video there was no way he would have responded to what he saw and tried to cut inside. That to me would have been more dangerous if it was even possible.
Steiner telling KMag enough is enough and to basically STFU was great. If that were me, I would've said next time don't drive like shit and crash the car. Bottas slowly reverting back to Bottas 1.0 the last couple of races. Hopefully he pulls out of it and wins a few more races this season to prevent Lewis from winning the WDC with 5+ races to go in the season.
Gunther on the radio was surprising. I don’t think Bottas has back slid. I think he had a bad qualifying and got stuck behind Ricardo. Before this race he was 20 points past Hamilton at this point in the season. Ricardo is not an easy guy to pass. Ricardo even admitted after the race he trashed his tires staying ahead of him. Ricardo had clean air and good brake cooling. In that situation even the faster Merc couldn’t pass the Renault as Bottas had to manage brake temps more.
Aside from all that noise, was gutted for Norris, he looked visibly gutted too, was in a strong position.
I'm no fan of Vettel. I think he's a one trick pony and now that he's missing his unmatched Red Bull he's dealing with the fact that he's not really a complete driver. Now that I've got that out of the way let me say that I also think the decision was a poor one. I'm also going to say that it was the only decision the stewards could reach given the current regulations. I'll lay money that the stewards felt the same based on the fact that they gave the minimum penalty allowed. There was no drive through. No ten second penalty. No stop and go. Looking at the incident, it started with what was effectively an unforced error. Braking hard and late, the back end kicked out. Vettel had to take the steering off and go straight, which meant cutting the corner onto the grass. Whether or not he had the time, the space, or the option to slow or correct the fact is that he made no attempt to keep off the racing line. After the race, I heard him say that he didn't/couldn't see Hamilton. That's not even relevant. He knew the Mercedes was there. In rejoining and moving to the racing line, the Mercedes was forced to brake to avoid an accident. That alone means Vettel's move was an unsafe rejoining of the track. There is no grey area. It was safe or it wasn't. Intention doesn't come into it. The fact that it happened on such a tight corner doesn't come into it. The regulations don't allow leeway. Whether the regulations should be changed is a different argument altogether. In '89 and '90 Senna took Prost out at Suzuka ... famously and spectactularly. Maybe (I'm being kind here) even deliberately. Both of those "incidents" had massive implications for the championships. Was that good, hard racing? I was a huge Senna fan. I thought Prost was cold and unlikeable. Senna had flair. A personality. He was a hero. He was still wrong. What would we be saying now if Hamilton hadn't reacted so quickly? If Vettel had put Hamilton into the wall? LeClerk would probably have taken the win. Vettel limped back for a quick repair and taken third. Would we be hailing Vettel a hero or the villain?
In 89 that was Prost that intentionally ran into Senna, not the other way around. And he put pressure after the race to have Senna disqualified for using the escape road of the chicane instead of put the reverse and make the corner, while any other people that missed the braking point that year and years before used the escape road without beeing penalized. That is how Prost won the championship that year. 1 year later with the reverse situation in the championship, Senna told Prost he will put him out of the race if he has the chance, as a payback for what he did 12 month ago. Now back that penality, it is one of the stupidest one ever given. Several driver in the past rejoined the track like this and were not penalized. The most recent one was Grosjean in the 1st corner of the race: this one was very dangerous with a lot of car with any visibility making the corner and Grosjean rejoining the track like no one was there. He had full control of his car and should have wait and rejoin last. Did not do it, nearly collide with a Racing Point and it was not even investigate. Hamilton also did things like this in the past without being worried and while he had full control of the car He cut the chicane, rejoin, then nearly put Ricciardo on the wall and forced him to brake to avoid collision. And that is only one example... BTW Hamilton just had enough space to make the move. It would have been very close to the wall, but if he did not have braked, he would have overtake Vettel with a few cm margin. For sure he couldn't know that because Vettel was out of control at that point, and that is why he braked, cannot blame him for that. On the other hand, Hamilton saying that he was not happy winning like that? Common, he was the very first one to say it was unsafe from Vettel. He knew that if he complain it will trigger an investigation...
Hi all I think the wording in the application of the penalty is slightly misleading and whats caused a lot of the problems taking into account that there wasn't much else Vettel could of done. I think one of the rules is if you leave the track you are not allowed to rejoin and gain an advantage which he did by staying ahead. Maybe they should of stated that as the reason for the penalty and made him give Hamilton the place although not sure Vettel would of done that either. Now whilst I appreciate its a highly charged emotional situation for Vettel his behaviour afterwards was childish and arrogant IMHO. Refusing to go to the correct position after the race and storming off and moving the signs were never going to make a difference other than making Vettel look like the petulant child he is. I really don't think he is ever going to win another World Championship and not sure how much longer he will be at Ferrari or even in F1. Marc
Personnally I'd rather see drivers with some temper even if sometime it could be seen as childish, than preformatted robot-spoking ones. Sport is about emotions: I do not follow them to see who write the best algorithm...
I can't see it like that. Yes, on that corner Prost turned into Senna but only after Senna put his car into a position where Prost had the choice of: 1) going straight, letting Senna pass; 2) braking to a near stop, letting Senna pass; or, 3) turning into the corner and hitting Senna or forcing Senna to stop. A few laps later, Senna made exactly the same move on Nannini (there's a name few will remember) on the same corner and Nannini backed out. Senna raced with a win or die attitude. There was never a thought of coming second. Second was losing. How could a kid not love that? Losing him was a blow I still feel in my gut to this day. Yes. But the stewards aren't bound by precedent. Their job is to look at an incident, apply the regulations and make a decision. The fact that a previous incident was decided another way or not even investigated doesn't make a later decision wrong. Perhaps it should ... but as things stand, it doesn't. It's every driver's job to win. Look at Hamilton in the driver's room directly after the race, playing with his drinks bottle; straw in mouth as he didn't have to talk; the one thing I did hear him say was something like "yeah, but it was a hard race still". He was genuinely embarrassed to take that win and more so with two Ferarri drivers in the room. But, that's the job. You take all the points you can, in whatever way you can, within the rules of the sport.
It was late braking by Senna, but it was fair. Prost turned at least 2 meter sooner that he should have to hit the apex. Areial shoot, just before they collided, when they collided, just after they collided. Look where Prost is going. No way it was a normal racing line, nor a normal defense line... For sure Senna had to drive like a mad man that day and take all the risks, but this collision was deliberate from Prost.. Anyway coming back to Hamilton, for sure he will do anything to win and took as many points as he can. That is what makes champions: whatever the opportunity, fair or not, they will take it. I do not deny that. Hamilton does that, Vettel does that, Leclerc also does that, Grosjean... well, no this one is mainly complaining. Even in France he do not have a lot of fans What I wanted to say is Hamilton he is not obliged to fake compassion for Vettel. You cannot call the shots then says "oops, sorry, please climb to the top of the podium". I could have believe it was genuine if he did not say anything about Vettel come back when it happened, and if the stewarts decided to look at it on their own. But that was not the case. I guess Hamilton was happy to win, felt a bit bad because he knew it was not fair and was partly responsible for it, but the podium thing, that was public relationship.
I've been following F1 for 30 years, almost not missed a race in 20 years. But this is the most boring season yet. I still love the sport, but something must be done. We need overtaking and action!
Here’s what I think happened. First he could have gotten a 3 second or deferred until after the race which would most likely be a grid spot in the next race. What I think happened is fallout from the last race. When Max has an unsafe pit release and received virtually no penalty for what many people think should have black flagged him. While the unsafe release was not Max’s fault, his contact with Bottas was. I think the stewards only looked at the release and forgot the penalty applies to the team not the driver and very minimally penalized one of the most dangerous things I’ve ever seen in F1. Other teams complained that exact rule was not followed which of course set up the 2 rulings that followed the letter of the rules and not the intent.
In other news Rich Energy is stepping on their own d10k.... https://jalopnik.com/rich-energy-is-tweeting-through-it-1835410484 My personal favorite is when they show a "magazine article" proving they are real that states "advertising piece" on the article... Also attacking Chris Harris might not be the best move... If you don't know the Haas main sponsor seems to not really exist or at least has virtually no sales and Jalopnik has been trying to track them down. They also clearly stole their logo and are in massive denial about it. https://jalopnik.com/what-you-find-when-you-look-into-rich-energy-the-myste-1833303620 https://jalopnik.com/haas-f1s-main-sponsor-went-to-court-over-its-logo-and-t-1834753571 TLDR: Never tweet unless you are Wendy's https://mashable.com/2017/11/25/best-wendys-tweets-twitter-2017/
I read the document issued by the court about the case, the people behind Rich Energy are a joke... Haas should really start to look after another title sponsor
It is very sketchy. Also, there was no Haas merchandise to be found in Montreal. Not at the track, Old Town, or Crescent St / Peel St. I wonder if the merch was pulled due to this logo dispute.