...does anyone here think it was deserved?
Discuss.
The Vettel penalty...
...does anyone here think it was deserved?
Discuss.
No
No, now sorry I wasted my Sunday watching it
A ridiculous penalty imo
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Horrendous.
I think Vettel is a whinny primadonna who always has to have is way, but he got absolutely shafted today. His moving of the 1st and 2nd parc ferme signs was a classic move, though. What a terrible way to end a pretty decent race—though I was rooting for LeClerc to get the distance to Vettel under 5 seconds while he was whining on the radio.
Terrible call.
Arrivederci F1. Back to the best open wheel racing since 90's CART. Hopefully FTG can't screw up IndyCar anymore.
Competition One Racing
racer6@mchsi.com
I think they are all whinny primadonas are different times. It all depends on your hearing.Originally Posted by dc
If it had been a club race...
I'd be thanking my lucky stars that I didn't get taken out.
For the "best 20 drivers in the world", Vettel was seriously screwed, he was doing all he could to recover from a mistake. Watching the replay, he had it back when Hamilton was on his rear wheel and he held his line and didn't turn out of the way. Being penalized for making a mistake is a little too P.C. for even F1.
Steve
I still believe four-wheels-off should penalized somehow - after all it is supposed to be road racing.
And the penalty needs to be administered very soon after the incident - preferably automatically.
It's now at least a decade since I first suggested an automatic detection system (to detect when a
car leaves the road) which triggers a power reduction for X seconds. I'm sure it can now be done far
better than when I first suggested it.
Yes.
Don't have rules you don't plan to or can't enforce, and enforce the rules you have.
He made an unsafe re-entry.
If folks want to argue that he must intentionally make an unsafe re-entry, or that such unsafe re-entry must result in an advantage, or contact with another car, then I'd suggest they need to change the rule.
5 second penalty seems adequate to me. If they don't want time penalties applied after the race is over then the option is a stop n go, hands off pit stop and that would suck a whole lot more.
I won't be surprised if the penalty is overturned, it is Ferrari.
Saying he "made an unsafe re-entry" implies he had a CHOICE, Daryl.
What else could he have done?
While he did all he could do, the fact remains he cut the corner while under pressure. While the screw-up was sufficient to take him all the way to the wall and he couldn't recover off-line, the penalty provided the same result.
He should have been given the option to let Ham by, and then re-pass if able.
Damon Hill referenced the great Villeneuve/Arnoux battle at Dijon, this was before folks started blocking and the chance to make a mistake with the gears or get outbraked went away. Different rules for different eras.
It’s a horrible call even if it is by the “book”. It’s also very inconsistent. 2016, Monaco Hamilton did the EXACT same thing to Ricardo. No penalty. For that reason alone, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ferrari got it reversed somehow.
Probably unpopular...
There's two things to consider here;
Firstly he left the circuit attempting to hold another driver behind him and maintained that position after coming back on. If he'd shortcut a chicane,he'd have had to give the place up, no? He lost control and still retained a place, is that really fair?
Secondly, he looked to his right and then continued to turn to the right. Extra footage, not available to the worldfeed but presented to the stewards showed that he appeared to register Hamilton was there but continued his outward trajectory. Certainly the overhead shot showed him move outwards when the racingline was to his left.
The stewards were unanimous in their verdictand that’s got to be a consideration.
http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/143996
“The stewards also used an extra CCTV cameraview of the incident,which was not broadcast on the international television feed, showing Vettelmoving his head and looking in the mirrors to see Hamilton was during themoments when he was releasing the wheel to the right.
On board footage of the Vettel incident also shows his head turning towards themirrors in the moment when he is drifting out - suggesting he knew whereHamilton was.”
can't wait...
to watch the rain delayed NAZKAR event today.................could you imagine them penalizing drivers in such a manor
No two ways about it, that was a dodgy decision in Monaco and indeed, many people said so at the time....
So where is a guy going to go off and back on at Michigan? cut the tri-oval through the grass?
If Hamilton was half the driver he thinks he is - seeing what was happening with Vettel, if he delayed picking up the throttle for half a count and then nailed it he would have been cleanly under Vettel as Vettel was still trying to regain control approaching the wall and easily executed the pass.
Instead Hamilton made the most dangerous move and tried to go between Vettel and the wall, where he HAD TO KNOW there would not be room as he could see Vettel was out of control when he made the decision.
Stewards have to be shielded from all the whining by the teams and their whiny drivers.
There seem to be some inconsistencies in all this.
If you gain a position by cutting a corner and going off the pavement, you give it back or the Stewards will tell you to do so. If you go off track and do not change position, then there is nothing to give back. Hamilton was not in the act of passing when Vettel went off. Hamilton was never in front of or even equally alongside Vettel.
Yes, Vettel erred, lost the rear end and went off into the grass. That particular corner has very little room to do anything in. I am of the opinion that Vettel was out of control in the grass and if he had attempted to brake hard or turn left to come out track right further down the track from where he did, he would have spun with disastrous consequences for himself and probably Hamilton too. His safest action was to keep straight thru the grass and try to regain control on the pavement.
In the slow motion analysis done by Karun, it appeared that when Vettel came back on track his rear end broke to a CCW spin and he did a quick countersteer to the right to regain control. His steering wheel movement was significantly more that you would expect if he was just steering over to track right. If he did have control at that point he would have been steering left to get back on track. By the time he regained control he was already close to the track limit (less than a car width remaining). In the same situation, we would be totally concerned and focused with getting our car back under control and not hitting the wall. Looking in our mirrors probably would not be possible and we would be trusting the other racers to keep themselves out of harms way.
Hamilton made his decision to attempt to pass on the right side of the track too late as Vettel was still out of control and already closing the door. A poor decision.
Many times, we see drivers screw up and impact the wall only to be caromed back onto the track. Are they given time penalties or assessed driver points? Maybe not because they are not in control of their car at that point in time?
The real question might be - was Vettel in control of his car in time to keep to the left side of the track? I think not. But I think the Stewards felt that he had control of his car and could have executed a maneuver to drive track left.
We have similar situations in the NBA and NFL. Referees are reluctant to call a penalty in the later stages of a game that will decide the outcome for one team or the other. Only the most egregious penalties are called and sometimes not even those. Does anybody want the F1 Stewards determining the outcome of races?
To me, it was a racing incident and the penalty should not have been called.
Craig Farr
Stohr WF1 P2
I disagree. You're inferring that the rule requires that the unsafe re-entry be made intentionally. Intent has nothing to do with it, either the re-entry was safe or it was not.
Agreed Rick, and in a club race (not F1) that's what I would expect any sporting person to have voluntarily done.
If Ferrari would have got on the horn with the stewards immediately and said "We screwed up, just tried to save the car. May we allow Hamilton by at the next opportunity, and rejoin without penalty?" Maybe, they would have allowed it.
Quite likely. However, the onus is not on Hamilton. Vettel was the one obligated to re-enter the racing surface in a safe manner once he left the racing surface.
The discussion shouldn't even be about whether a penalty should apply or not, rather what the penalty should be and when applied.
Personally, commanding that Vettel let Hamilton by at the very next opportunity should have been sufficient. . . and given Vettel the opportunity to continue to battle for the position.
I disagree with you. How many time have you seen somebody get out of shape, get in the gravel, bounce off the wall or spin out and slide or roll back out onto the track causing everybody behind to scatter and go around, I don't remember these type of incidents all getting a penalty for unsafe re-entry. If you are IN CONTROL and you choose to re-enter the track on the racing line causing a dangerous situation for cars behind-that should be a penalty.
Most rules that I'm aware of have wording something along the lines of "gaining an advantage". Gaining an advantage could be the time gap, could be the position. However, in the event that the leading car is the one leaving the racing surface, and in doing so, actually losses time or position, usually no reason to penalize. However, this was about his re-entry causing another driver to take action to avoid contact.
Yes, I'm a Hamilton fan, and yes this is exactly like the '16 Monaco event. But just because the stewards got it wrong then, doesn't mean they should purposely get it wrong again.
Too numerous for me to count. However, those folks already lost numerous positions in those examples. The penalty serves no purpose, the damage to their effort was already done.
Agree with the analysis completely.
However, the rule doesn't require intent or allow for exceptions for a "racing incident". Doesn't mean the stewards won't reverse their decision for political reasons and cite racing incident as the excuse though.
I thought you stated the rule was the rule, should not then make a difference if it serves a purpose or not. You can't have it both ways.
Ed
You are paraphrasing, but yes, that's kind of what I said. I don't want rules that you can't or don't plan to enforce. I want you to enforce the rules you have. However, it serves no purpose to assign a 5 second penalty or a stop n' go penalty to a car that has already DNF'd. So, yes I believe the purpose of rules are to have the ability to penalize undesired behavior.
I'm pretty sure that someone has re-entered the track unsafely by your definition and recovered to score points so a time penalty could easily have a purpose.
My wife asked if the outcome was anything like the Kentucky Derby. I said, well, the leader made a mistake and wound up unintentionally impeding someone behind, in an unsafe manner. For that he was not disqualified, but was penalized.
Caldwell D9B - Sold
Crossle' 30/32/45 Mongrel - Sold
RF94 Monoshock - here goes nothin'
It is called RACING, not 'After you Lewis'!
Sure, it could. And in this instance with Vettle v. Hamilton, I believe it did. I was speaking to those that hit walls and DNF'd not receiving penalties for their unsafe re-entry as in those instances, it is not necessary.
Unsafe
When someone spin and cars go every which way to avoid and then those cars re-enter the track they do not all hit the wall and DNF. Lots of them continue with no penalty.
Ed
If they were to have collided, would Ham have been slapped with an "avoidable contact" penalty.
When another driver is out of control, isn't it irresponsible to put yourself into a position to be collected by the other car?
You're saying it was because another driver had to take action. If Ham did not have to take action, would they still have penalized him?
So, when does the re-entry end? and position defense begin?
Therefore, the stewards must have thought they re-entered in a safe manner. This really isn't that difficult guys.
In the old days of the Skip Barber Race Series, a "Four Off" was a mandatory pit stop - mostly to keep Skip's cars in on piece but not a lot of people went off track.....
Now if you say Hamilton should have been penalized at Monaco, he probably should have (not knowing if the rules were the same then as now), but it was a messed up race and Ricciardo should never have been in that position but his team messed up the pit stop.. and Hamilton won by 7 seconds so even if he got the penalty it might have been moot....
So, should Vettel have gotten the penalty? Well the stewards must have seen something we did not, as most of their calls are "no action taken". While the time penalty seems to us to be impractical, in the world of F1 it is not much different that a free throw in basketball or a penalty kick in soccer. Also consider Indy Cars enforcement of avoidable contact this year.
The fact that the stewards have access to data that the average fan does not, seems to be the problem. Just the opposite in baseball where the fans seem to have better replays than the umpires....
ChrisZ
And I think this is my problem with F1 right now. The last few years and even more this year it's all about the Mercs.
It's become f-n boring at the front. There was more coverage at the front this race than the last 5 combined.
And I think Ham recognizes this. He understands the entertainment side of the show.
I know he has a goal of what 8 championships? But he needs F1 and Merc around to do it.
I understand Toto's position (its his job) BUT a dominant player does not need to win like this.
He's going to win himself out of a job. He should have taken the position "we want to win on track."
Fans are always pissed when referees decidedly affect the outcome of any contest.
I don't know. Depends where that contact occurred and what the stewards thought of the contact.
For arguments' sake let's agree that it is. Where is that against the rules? You have to make a reasonable guess where to go when Vettel went off. You commit right and hope he stays left, you commit left and hope he drifts right, or you don't do your job and squeeze the puss pedal at let him gather it back up and carry on in front of you.
I sincerely doubt they would have. Absent some kind of blend line on pit exit, how do you argue that some re-entry was unsafe when it didn't impact anybody else in any manner, and you didn't hit anything?
Good question! If it were up to me define, I would say re-entry ends and position defense begins once you have all 4 wheels on the racing surface, are pointed in the correct direction, and have resumed race pace.
That would depend on whether their team won or not. No calls can be just as infuriating.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote