1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

The 2019 F1 season.

Discussion in 'off topic' started by Tony Lockhart, Dec 4, 2018.

  1. sean99

    sean99 pfm Member

    My take is that Vettel made an error and did not deliberately block Hamilton when rejoining - he had insufficient traction to keep to the left. As such I think the penalty was excessively harsh. Hamilton, cool and calculated then backed off, realizing that attempting to pass a furious Vettel could easily result in a crash that would end both of their races. I think a 1-2 second penalty might have been better as it would have allowed Vettel a chance to try to pull away from Hamilton and would have kept the two of them racing, while not risking a crash.

    On the other hand Vettel's behavior was very poor.
    martin dawson likes this.
  2. tones

    tones Tones deaf

    I quite like the suggestion in Autocar - Vettel should have been instructed to allow Hamilton past, which he would have done, had Vettel not cut across so sharply, and then they race to the flag. An enraged Vettel trying to retake the lead would have been quite a spectacle. (Of course, on the other hand, there have been quite a few instances where Vettel under pressure has made errors, and he could have ended up in the wall, or perhaps even doing a Senna-on-Prost-in-Japan.
    sean99 likes this.
  3. cutting42

    cutting42 Heading to Fish Hacker Erg \o/

    To be fair to STR he drove very well, his best race so far IMO.
  4. The Chronicals

    The Chronicals Disruptor

    Having looked back over it, Im on Vettels side.

    Racing is racing, Hamilton knew he was playing on the rules to ensure his win by asking for an investigation, but in reality, he knew it was just racing.

    This is the type of management behaviour that literally has F1 fans walking away in their droves and ruins it completely.

    If I was Vettel I would have parked the car right in the stewards actual room, he was reserved in his protest.
    Paja, christray and martin dawson like this.
  5. JensenHealey

    JensenHealey pfm Member

    I cannot understand why anyone would think that making a self made mistake, going off the track and rejoining bu cutting across gives him any 'right' to maintain the lead. He could, and should, have allowed Hamilton to continue on his chosen path. Instead he interfered with the path of a racer who had done nothing wrong to force his way back to the lead. The stewards have explained that it was easily seen on camera that Vettel knew where Hamilton was in his mirrors and deliberately moved his car to force Hamilton to take evasive action. If that had happened in a normal track situation - well maybe that was 'racing', even so there could have been grounds for an appeal. But to do so after going off the track? That was dangerous.

    Actually disgraceful - but we increasingly see (after the race) Vettel has become ungentlemanly and petulant.
    pjdowns likes this.
  6. pjdowns

    pjdowns Living the Hifi dream

    Well apart from the fact that Vettel was the one who made the mistake 'again' and then behaved like a petulant baby after getting out of the car.

    Hamilton was well within his rights to lodge his protest that he had been pushed into the wall, any other driver should and likely would have done the same.

    What is destroying the sport per say, is the non-Mercedes teams not having the ability to catch them up, but we always go through dominant periods, look at the McLaren days with Senna and Prost and the Ferrari days with Schumacher.
  7. The Chronicals

    The Chronicals Disruptor

    Mistakes happen, he sorted it, and got back on track, didums to the person behind him, thats racing (Im a Hamilton supporter as well)...and we need some personality in such a dull rich man sport. Personally, I'd have just parked horizontally over the 1/2 place spots or smashed through the stewards green room. 'HI GUYS, you said problem no?'
    martin dawson likes this.
  8. sean99

    sean99 pfm Member

    Yes I think that would have been the best solution- a reasonable penalty that keeps everyone racing
  9. The Chronicals

    The Chronicals Disruptor

  10. davidjt

    davidjt pfm Member

    The Syd Fox school of thought, now almost universal, was that a ruthless 'hard man' reputation discourages attempts to overtake. The downside is that when stewards have a 50/50 decision to make you're unlikely to get the benefit of any doubt. At the time I assumed it was intentional. Since then I've read that Seb was still regaining control of the car, in which case it clearly wasn't. But if I heard that an unnamed driver had put a rival into the wall, he'd be among my first three guesses.
    So I find it hard to have any sympathy.
  11. Spike

    Spike pfm Member

  12. windhoek

    windhoek The Phoolosopher

  13. peter bj

    peter bj pfm Member

    Yes very good write up
  14. cutting42

    cutting42 Heading to Fish Hacker Erg \o/

    It's funny how quite mediocre F1 drivers have become excellent pundits, Jolyon Palmer, Karun Chandhok, Anthony Davidson, Brundle of course but he was better than mediocre.
  15. JensenHealey

    JensenHealey pfm Member

    Plenty of good sport managers / trainers / mentors were not necessarily at the very top of their chosen field. Different skill set.

    Same with critics not being good actors. And so too, it is not a requirement in order to be a good pundit.
  16. Tony Lockhart

    Tony Lockhart pfm Member

    I can drink beer quite competitively.

    Mediocre at brewing.
    windhoek and Rack Kit like this.
  17. davidjt

    davidjt pfm Member

    My home-brewed beer is actually rather good, if I say so myself. The crucial tip was: 'Make 40 pints at a time rather than ten, and you'll find it lasts almost twice as long.'
    windhoek and Tony Lockhart like this.
  18. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    I think Palmer is wrong.

    Because if you are having an accident then you don't get penalised for collecting another driver during the event. The penalty hinges on whether Vettel returned to the track, recovered control, and then blocked Hamilton. So this bit,

    doesn't apply. To rejoin in an unsafe manner implies having full control, otherwise you are not rejoining, you're still crashing.

    The stewards presumably looked at all the information available to them and determined that the block causing Hamilton to brake was optional, (probably not conscious or deliberate, I would presume it was reflex, but optional).

    But I think it would have been quite reasonable to have let it lie given there was no accident, it wasn't egregious and Hamilton put himself in a position where he was taking a chance of being put in the wall by a recovering Vettel. Racing drivers racing.
    Tony Lockhart likes this.
  19. windhoek

    windhoek The Phoolosopher

    Yeah, this is why it seems a wee bit harsh: it may have been wrong by the letter of the law but...
  20. cutting42

    cutting42 Heading to Fish Hacker Erg \o/

    This is why it will never be settled and there is no satisfactory outcome. Nobody was a cock, HAM and VET both agree on what both did, the rules were followed, HAM should have been able to overtake, VET was not unreasonable in his driving.

    The only thing that works is what was done. VET made the forced error; HAM effectively got past.
    clivem2 likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice