CANADIAN GP 2019

[sadsac]

Bottom post of the previous page:

Personally being a Lewis fan that decision by so called stewarts is a farce
Poor old Seb he was ROBBED
You can clearly see a kick of oversteer entering the turn which ends with him on the grass but as he comes back on track he the car steps out again (obviously dirty tyres) which makes him correct unfortunately squeezing Lewis in the process, he never gained any advantage
Really
Please bring back the battles of old without all these stupid fucxxxn rules and penalties because from where i see it it could be the death of F1 ‍

[erwin greven]

Ferrari lodges intention to appeal Vettel decision

Ferrari has lodged its intention to appeal the stewards decision to penalize Sebastian Vettel that ultimately cost him victory in the Canadian Grand Prix.

Vettel was handed a five-second time penalty after going wide at Turn 3 and cutting across the grass, with the stewards deciding he “rejoined the track at Turn 4 in an unsafe manner” ahead of Lewis Hamilton (car 44) “and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.”

The incident resulted in Vettel, who crossed the finish line first, being relegated to second behind Hamilton as he could not pull out a big enough gap in the final 12 laps after being informed of the penalty.

Ferrari has now confirmed its intention to appeal the decision, with the stewards document stating: “Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules”. Those articles state any appeal would be heard by the International Court of Appeal.

Having lodged its intention, Ferrari now has 96 hours to decide whether to appeal the stewards decision, which would require the team to provide fresh evidence.

The 2019 Sporting Regulations state that a time penalty, drive-through, stop-and-go, reprimand or grid drop cannot be appealed, but Williams appealed a three-place grid penalty for Sergey Sirotkin after last year’s Azerbaijan Grand Prix. On that occasion, a preliminary FIA hearing felt there was no new evidence presented and dismissed the appeal.

In Canada, the FIA also looked closely at Lewis Hamilton’s car after the race as a result of a hydraulic system change that was made on Sunday, but confirmed the car complied with the regulations as it was changed for one of identical specification.

“It was confirmed for car number 44 that the PU hydraulic system, which was replaced today during the parc fermé, is in compliance with Article 34.2 of the 2019 Formula One Sporting Regulations.”

https://racer.com/2019/06/09/ferrari-lo ... irc-latest

[erwin greven]

Racing Drivers And Pundits Are In Near-Unanimous Disagreement With Vettel's Penalty

Many current and former racing drivers have taken to social media to share their views on Sebastian Vettel's penalty - and there isn't a whole lot of disagreement

As fans, we’re simply armchair experts speaking from the heart with nothing more to go on than what we’ve seen on the TV.

Racing drivers, on the other hand, know a thing or two about racing situations and the response from across the motorsport world seems to be in collective disbelief about what just happened.

If there are any positives to take out of this (and I’m really struggling to find one), it’s that the outrage at the penalty from all quarters might spark the sport into taking a long, hard look about the way it does things.

I won’t be holding my breath, though, because perhaps the worst part of this whole sorry situation is that when that penalty message popped up, a part of me that wasn’t at all surprised.

https://wtf1.com/post/racing-drivers-an ... s-penalty/

[John]

Right, I've spent the better part of my lunch break dissecting the FIA sporting regulations to see what the rule book actually says.

The first thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is that "unsafe reentry" or anything to that extent isn't described in itself.

The verdict from the stewards:

The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director, have considered the following matter and determine the following:

No / Driver: 5 - Sebastian Vettel

Competitor: Scuderia Ferrari

Time: 15:13

Session: Race

Fact: Car 5 left the track, re-joined unsafely and forced another car off track.

Offence: Involved in an incident as defined by Article 38.1 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.

Decision: 5 second time penalty (2 point awarded, 7 points in total for the 12 month period).

Reason: 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.

Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

So, off we go to article 38.1, whilst adding 38.2.a for good measure:

38.1: The race director may report any on‐track incident or suspected breach of these Sporting
Regulations or the Code (an “Incident”) to the stewards. After review it shall be at the
discretion of the stewards to decide whether or not to proceed with an investigation.
The stewards may also investigate an Incident noted by themselves.

38.2 a) It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide if any driver involved in an Incident
should be penalised. Unless it is clear to the stewards that a driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for
an Incident no penalty will be imposed.

What bothers me about this is that the FIA doesn't seem to have a case book file where it says what will happen if a driver does this or that. You know, a proper functioning rule book like every other goddamn sport have. If they do, where is it?

Anyway, let's review it again.

Who was to blame for creating the situation? Obviously Vettel.
Does Vettel carry all the blame? Yes.

These two facts are indisputable.

So it's the case of Vettel not leaving the prescribed room for Lewis and/or rejoining on the racing line rather than off it (described where, by the way?) by one car width and thus creating a situation which put both cars at risk. Seb's radio traffic saying that "If I didn't do that he'd overtake me" or something along that extent suggests it was intentional. If he's supposed to leave one car width to Lewis and didn't, he should get penalized. If Lewis' hadn't slammed the brakes and avoided Seb he would have gotten smacked with a "creating a collision" penalty anyway.

The discussion as to whether or not it's a BS rule in the first place is another discussion. What bothers me is that I can't find it written anywhere what the protocol says for rejoining the track after going off it.

[Vassago]

"Discretion of the stewards" so it's a judgement penalty. If you expect a stonewall explanation, you won't find it bc it's simply not there in the rulebook.

[John]

"Discretion of the stewards" so it's a judgement penalty. If you expect a stonewall explanation, you won't find it bc it's simply not there in the rulebook.

Exactly. I couldn't be bothered going through the older rule books (2016, for instance) but I presume the writing is similar or the same. So as with all other sports, different stewards will see things differently, just a two football referees will probably call things differently when the rule book leaves room for interpretation.

[kals]

A second steering wheel input from Sebastian Vettel after he regained control of his Ferrari Formula 1 car was pivotal in his Canadian Grand Prix penalty, Autosport has learned.

The Montreal F1 stewards ruled that Vettel had rejoined the track in an unsafe manner following his error at the first chicane with 22 laps to go and forced Lewis Hamilton off the circuit.

The five-second penalty imposed for the incident meant Vettel lost what would have been his and Ferrari's first win of the 2019 F1 season to Hamilton.

Vettel was adamant he had done nothing wrong, and said he had been powerless in the situation because his car was out of control after running over the grass.

But while it is clear from on board footage that Vettel was battling to control his car as he bounced off the grass onto the circuit again, it is understood that the stewards' decision was based on Vettel's actions at the point he had effectively recovered from the incident.

The stewards examined slow motion footage of Vettel's actions from the moment that he had regained control and started steering his car - and felt the evidence showed that he could have made different choices that would have been within the rules.

The footage clearly captures Vettel correcting an oversteer moment as he rejoins the track - which is shown by a sharp steering wheel movement to the right.

Shortly after that, Vettel has sorted the oversteer and begins steering to the left to follow the direction of the circuit - suggesting he is now under control.

But a split moment later, rather than keeping to the left, Vettel is shown to release the steering wheel - which allows his car to drift to the right, cutting off the route that Hamilton would have taken had he had clear space.


The movement to straighten the wheel, which put the Ferrari into the path of Hamilton's Mercedes, is believed to be key to the unanimous decision by the stewards to punish Vettel.

The stewards also used an extra CCTV camera view of the incident, which was not broadcast on the international television feed, showing Vettel moving his head and looking in the mirrors to see Hamilton was during the moments when he was releasing the wheel to the right.

On board footage of the Vettel incident also shows his head turning towards the mirrors in the moment when he is drifting out - suggesting he knew where Hamilton was.

Had Vettel kept his car tight to the left once he had regained control, then there was likely enough room to have allowed Hamilton through on the right - in which case the matter would almost certainly not have been investigated.

The fact that telemetry data showed Hamilton had to brake to avoid the collision with Vettel indicated how the Mercedes driver was caught out by his rival's actions.

Precedent for the decision to punish Vettel for both rejoining the track in an unsafe manner and forcing a rival off the track was made last year in Japan when Max Verstappen was hit with a five-second penalty for a collision with Kimi Raikkonen at the chicane.

Verstappen had run wide at the chicane on the first lap of the race and rejoined in an aggressive manner, pushing Raikkonen wide on the exit.

At the time, the late F1 race director Charlie Whiting said: "You are required to rejoin safely and Kimi was there and [Verstappen was] pushing him off the track. So I think that was a fairly straightforward one for the stewards."

[caneparo]

Right, I've spent the better part of my lunch break dissecting the FIA sporting regulations to see what the rule book actually says.

The first thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is that "unsafe reentry" or anything to that extent isn't described in itself.

The verdict from the stewards:

The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director, have considered the following matter and determine the following:

No / Driver: 5 - Sebastian Vettel

Competitor: Scuderia Ferrari

Time: 15:13

Session: Race

Fact: Car 5 left the track, re-joined unsafely and forced another car off track.

Offence: Involved in an incident as defined by Article 38.1 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.

Decision: 5 second time penalty (2 point awarded, 7 points in total for the 12 month period).

Reason: 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.

Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

So, off we go to article 38.1, whilst adding 38.2.a for good measure:

38.1: The race director may report any on‐track incident or suspected breach of these Sporting
Regulations or the Code (an “Incident”) to the stewards. After review it shall be at the
discretion of the stewards to decide whether or not to proceed with an investigation.
The stewards may also investigate an Incident noted by themselves.

38.2 a) It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide if any driver involved in an Incident
should be penalised. Unless it is clear to the stewards that a driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for
an Incident no penalty will be imposed.

What bothers me about this is that the FIA doesn't seem to have a case book file where it says what will happen if a driver does this or that. You know, a proper functioning rule book like every other goddamn sport have. If they do, where is it?

Anyway, let's review it again.

Who was to blame for creating the situation? Obviously Vettel.
Does Vettel carry all the blame? Yes.

These two facts are indisputable.

So it's the case of Vettel not leaving the prescribed room for Lewis and/or rejoining on the racing line rather than off it (described where, by the way?) by one car width and thus creating a situation which put both cars at risk. Seb's radio traffic saying that "If I didn't do that he'd overtake me" or something along that extent suggests it was intentional. If he's supposed to leave one car width to Lewis and didn't, he should get penalized. If Lewis' hadn't slammed the brakes and avoided Seb he would have gotten smacked with a "creating a collision" penalty anyway.

The discussion as to whether or not it's a BS rule in the first place is another discussion. What bothers me is that I can't find it written anywhere what the protocol says for rejoining the track after going off it.

Rules must be interpreted. Vettel indeed made a mistake but hamilton was a bit too far to attack him. Vettel had no option to make what he did because he tried to control the car to avoid an accident (which could involve also hamilton). It’s lame to debate on the commas and subcommas on such a clear thing. This is killing the interest in the sport.

[MonteCristo]

The countless times drivers cut the track, retained their position, and it was judged to be A-Okay, makes this decision bullshit.

[Mawerick]

blah blah

It sounds like they only looked at the steering wheel and not telemetry. I'm willing to bet that the extra movement was necessary due to dirty tires / wheelspin when Vettel was trying to accelerate.

[kals]

The countless times drivers cut the track, retained their position, and it was judged to be A-Okay, makes this decision bullshit.

6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other. Every situation is different and no situation is the same.

Debate is what is going to happen whether we agree with the decision or not. While I don't believe the incident was penalty worthy, I can understand and appreciate why it was handed out. And at the same time, considering the sheer number of incidents that Vettel has not be penalised for over the years this does appear to be some form of karmic retribution.

Being brutally honest this is a fascinating situation. It's a great talking point. It's creating interest and engagement amongst F1 fans. There has been a catalog of (what we feel are) bad decisions over the years so this is not a unique incident. It's perfectly fine for us to agree to disgaree and it's perfectly fine for people to be unhappy with what transpired. Soon enough this incident will just become another metric is questionable stewarding decisions and we'll be debating the next incident.

[John]

The countless times drivers cut the track, retained their position, and it was judged to be A-Okay, makes this decision bullshit.

No, since the Kimi/Max incident at Suzuka last year acted as the praxis for this incident, what happened before that isn't interesting any more. Had Sebastian been cleared even when they took action at Suzuka, that would have been a problem. After Suzuka they apparently informed the teams that "This is the ruling from now on" and yesterday they followed through on it.

blah blah

It sounds like they only looked at the steering wheel and not telemetry. I'm willing to bet that the extra movement was necessary due to dirty tires / wheelspin when Vettel was trying to accelerate.

Even so, it's his own fault for putting himself in a situation where he's under scrutiny in the first place. To continue with the football analogy, even if a penalty is "cheap", the defender should never put himself in a situation where he risks the referee awarding said penalty in the first place.

While I don't believe the incident was penalty worthy, I can understand and appreciate why it was handed out.

100%. Also I'm glad that we finally got SOMETHING to discuss.

[caneparo]

I m out of this discussion. I will not consider this kind of episode as part if the racing anymore

[Mawerick]

Vettel was not in control of the car when he came back on track. Based on this penalty, I'm fully expecting similar penalties will be delivered to drivers who come back to the track sideways or even upside down, missing an engine.

[John]

Vettel was not in control of the car when he came back on track. Based on this penalty, I'm fully expecting similar penalties will be delivered to drivers who come back to the track sideways or even upside down, missing an engine.

I would not, because that is a crash and a crash is a different thing all together. That is reductio ad absurdum.

However if a driver straight lines a chicane and rejoins in the middle of the pack I'd fully expect a penalty to be dished out under the same rules. If a driver straight lines a chicane and broad sides another car I expect a penalty to be dished out.



Why wasn't everybody up in arms over this? Hell. Looking through the Japanese GP thread from last year the consensus seems to be that Max getting slapped with five seconds was warranted. Explain to me like I've gone through a lobotomy why there's a difference.

[Mawerick]

Vettel was not in control of the car when he came back on track. Based on this penalty, I'm fully expecting similar penalties will be delivered to drivers who come back to the track sideways or even upside down, missing an engine.

I would not, because that is a crash and a crash is a different thing all together. That is reductio ad absurdum.

I was being sarcastic.

Why wasn't everybody up in arms over this? Hell. Looking through the Japanese GP thread from last year the consensus seems to be that Max getting slapped with five seconds was warranted. Explain to me like I've gone through a lobotomy why there's a difference.

How can you even compare the incidents? Max was fully in control of his car, going rather slowly and just decided to drive back onto track the way he did. Vettel did what he did because he had no other choice.