Discussion:
'not the open-and shut case that some have suggested.'
(too old to reply)
Alan Baker
2019-06-18 20:38:24 UTC
Permalink
<https://ca.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-vettel-ferrari-penalty-review-canada/4476551/>

I suggest you all read it; especially as it relates to the involuntary
nature of rejoining the track:

'Article 27.3 of the Sporting Regulations states: "Drivers will be
judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact
with it and, for the avoidance of doubt, any white lines defining the
track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are
not. Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this
may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining a lasting
advantage.

The FIA says that Vettel moving across on Hamilton shows that he did not
rejoin safely.

One of the key reasons for the FIA stewards coming to this conclusion
was the use of secondary steering wheel movements from the German after
an initial oversteer moment as he rejoined the track.

The argument was that at the moment Vettel was back in control of the
car, rather than steer to the left to give Hamilton room on the right,
it was felt that the German's release of the wheel was a deliberate
attempt to edge wider and block Hamilton.'

Did you get that?

The stewards' argument that they only penalized Vettel because of his
second steering movement proving he was back in control negates the
argument that the rule about rejoining safely applies regardless of
whether it was beyond a driver's control.

There's a lot more.
Willsy
2019-06-19 09:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
<https://ca.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-vettel-ferrari-penalty-review-canada/4476551/>
I suggest you all read it; especially as it relates to the involuntary
'Article 27.3 of the Sporting Regulations states: "Drivers will be
judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact
with it and, for the avoidance of doubt, any white lines defining the
track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are
not. Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this
may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining a lasting
advantage.
The FIA says that Vettel moving across on Hamilton shows that he did not
rejoin safely.
One of the key reasons for the FIA stewards coming to this conclusion
was the use of secondary steering wheel movements from the German after
an initial oversteer moment as he rejoined the track.
The argument was that at the moment Vettel was back in control of the
car, rather than steer to the left to give Hamilton room on the right,
it was felt that the German's release of the wheel was a deliberate
attempt to edge wider and block Hamilton.'
Did you get that?
The stewards' argument that they only penalized Vettel because of his
second steering movement proving he was back in control negates the
argument that the rule about rejoining safely applies regardless of
whether it was beyond a driver's control.
There's a lot more.
I finally got a chance to watch the race, and it genuinely looked (to me)
that Vettel was not in control of the car until it was half way across the
track. The turn to the right was to stabilise the back end which was trying
to come 'round. I'm paraphrasing Brundle, but that's more or less what he
(Brundle) said.

I think it was harsh. I'm not a fan of Vettel, I think he was a total
a-hole when he was racing with Webber, but he seems to have matured into
a decent guy since then. I played the incident back over and over and
could not convince myself there was a deliberate action to put Lewis into
the wall.
geoff
2019-06-19 10:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willsy
I think it was harsh. I'm not a fan of Vettel, I think he was a total
a-hole when he was racing with Webber, but he seems to have matured into
a decent guy since then. I played the incident back over and over and
could not convince myself there was a deliberate action to put Lewis into
the wall.
Deliberate block or not, he stuffed up under pressure, completely left
the track, and rejoined without any disadvantage despite having gone 4
wheels over. Just that should have something covered in the rules if
there isn't.

Palmer's analysis suggests a possible deliberate act, or at best a
non-avoidance of the crowding situation which could/should have been made.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-19 15:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Willsy
I think it was harsh. I'm not a fan of Vettel, I think he was a total
a-hole when he was racing with Webber, but he seems to have matured into
a decent guy since then. I played the incident back over and over and
could not convince myself there was a deliberate action to put Lewis into
the wall.
Deliberate block or not, he stuffed up under pressure, completely left
the track, and rejoined without any disadvantage despite having gone 4
wheels over.  Just that should have something covered in the rules if
there isn't.
And suddenly you want to call the spirit of the rules.
Post by geoff
Palmer's analysis suggests a possible deliberate act, or at best a
non-avoidance of the crowding situation which could/should have been made.
And about a dozen other drivers have looked at it and said the opposite.
geoff
2019-06-19 19:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Willsy
I think it was harsh. I'm not a fan of Vettel, I think he was a total
a-hole when he was racing with Webber, but he seems to have matured into
a decent guy since then. I played the incident back over and over and
could not convince myself there was a deliberate action to put Lewis into
the wall.
Deliberate block or not, he stuffed up under pressure, completely left
the track, and rejoined without any disadvantage despite having gone 4
wheels over.  Just that should have something covered in the rules if
there isn't.
And suddenly you want to call the spirit of the rules.
Post by geoff
Palmer's analysis suggests a possible deliberate act, or at best a
non-avoidance of the crowding situation which could/should have been made.
And about a dozen other drivers have looked at it and said the opposite.
Mostly just shooting from the hip. Not with the same reasoned and
video-demonstrated analysis.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-19 20:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Willsy
I think it was harsh. I'm not a fan of Vettel, I think he was a total
a-hole when he was racing with Webber, but he seems to have matured into
a decent guy since then. I played the incident back over and over and
could not convince myself there was a deliberate action to put Lewis into
the wall.
Deliberate block or not, he stuffed up under pressure, completely
left the track, and rejoined without any disadvantage despite having
gone 4 wheels over.  Just that should have something covered in the
rules if there isn't.
And suddenly you want to call the spirit of the rules.
Post by geoff
Palmer's analysis suggests a possible deliberate act, or at best a
non-avoidance of the crowding situation which could/should have been made.
And about a dozen other drivers have looked at it and said the opposite.
Mostly just shooting from the hip. Not with the same reasoned and
video-demonstrated analysis.
geoff
Mostly experienced observers of what it is like to drive an F1 going by
their visual understanding of the situation.

Do you notice that the analysis provided by Palmer (with at least the
acquiescence of F1 if not at its behest) didn't include G forces or yaw
rates? Those could easily have made the case ironclad if it really was a
deliberate move by Vettel instead of a driver just trying to keep the
car off the wall.
geoff
2019-06-19 20:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Do you notice that the analysis provided by Palmer (with at least the
acquiescence of F1 if not at its behest) didn't include G forces or yaw
rates? Those could easily have made the case ironclad if it really was a
deliberate move by Vettel instead of a driver just trying to keep the
car off the wall.
Clutch. Straws.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-19 20:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Do you notice that the analysis provided by Palmer (with at least the
acquiescence of F1 if not at its behest) didn't include G forces or
yaw rates? Those could easily have made the case ironclad if it really
was a deliberate move by Vettel instead of a driver just trying to
keep the car off the wall.
Clutch. Straws.
No, actually.

The stewards have access to a lot of data that they haven't shown us.

A second clockwise movement of the steering wheel and a glance in the
mirror prove nothing about what Vettel was doing at the time.

It's quite natural to glance at who might be in the space you're going
into...

...even if you have no way at all to prevent yourself from going there.

And just because he caught one oversteer early on as he re-entered the
tarmac surface, doesn't mean he didn't experience another one.

Palmer never mentions that he "straightens up" the steering only for a
short instant (even in slow motion the wheel was only straight for a
frame or two) and then is immediately steering left again.

He comes on trying to steer as much to the left as he can: he gets a lot
of oversteer and catches it.

He then starts steering left again and why is it that the reason he
opens the wheel for a moment might be oversteer.

We've seen no data that confirms it is anything, and if you actually
watch at full speed...

...as all those other drivers (WDCs included) did!...

...it certainly seems to be a second, smaller oscillation being caught.
geoff
2019-06-19 22:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Do you notice that the analysis provided by Palmer (with at least the
acquiescence of F1 if not at its behest) didn't include G forces or
yaw rates? Those could easily have made the case ironclad if it
really was a deliberate move by Vettel instead of a driver just
trying to keep the car off the wall.
Clutch. Straws.
No, actually.
The stewards have access to a lot of data that they haven't shown us.
Exactly. And that presumably helped them make their decision.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-19 23:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Do you notice that the analysis provided by Palmer (with at least
the acquiescence of F1 if not at its behest) didn't include G forces
or yaw rates? Those could easily have made the case ironclad if it
really was a deliberate move by Vettel instead of a driver just
trying to keep the car off the wall.
Clutch. Straws.
No, actually.
The stewards have access to a lot of data that they haven't shown us.
Exactly. And that presumably helped them make their decision.
So since they've clearly put up a video to defend their decision...

...why show us so little data?
geoff
2019-06-20 00:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Do you notice that the analysis provided by Palmer (with at least
the acquiescence of F1 if not at its behest) didn't include G
forces or yaw rates? Those could easily have made the case ironclad
if it really was a deliberate move by Vettel instead of a driver
just trying to keep the car off the wall.
Clutch. Straws.
No, actually.
The stewards have access to a lot of data that they haven't shown us.
Exactly. And that presumably helped them make their decision.
So since they've clearly put up a video to defend their decision...
...why show us so little data?
Because that data is of little benefit to most people.

Or is it The Conspiracy ?

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-20 02:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Do you notice that the analysis provided by Palmer (with at least
the acquiescence of F1 if not at its behest) didn't include G
forces or yaw rates? Those could easily have made the case
ironclad if it really was a deliberate move by Vettel instead of a
driver just trying to keep the car off the wall.
Clutch. Straws.
No, actually.
The stewards have access to a lot of data that they haven't shown us.
Exactly. And that presumably helped them make their decision.
So since they've clearly put up a video to defend their decision...
...why show us so little data?
Because that data is of little benefit to most people.
It would be of great benefit to those who want to understand this penalty...
Post by geoff
Or is it The Conspiracy ?
geoff
Bigbird
2019-06-20 05:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Do you notice that the analysis provided by Palmer (with at
least the acquiescence of F1 if not at its behest) didn't
include G forces or yaw rates? Those could easily have made
the case ironclad if it really was a deliberate move by Vettel
instead of a driver just trying to keep the car off the wall.
Clutch. Straws.
No, actually.
The stewards have access to a lot of data that they haven't shown us.
Exactly. And that presumably helped them make their decision.
Lol. Well at least it's nice to see that I made my point and it was
just Alan's pig headed conceit that prevented him from admitting it.

Did you also note the straw man in the op relying on the assumed
reasoning of the stewards when that remains unknown beyond what was in
the communication.

I think there is only one major question that has been provoked by this
discussion.

If a driver holds on to a position by blocking another driver (forcing
him off track or to take avoiding action or even causing a collision)
how much does it matter whether the blocking was in the offenders
control or not. Instinctively I think that it should matter but it's
less obvious when you start to analyse it.

I think we have seen decisions go both ways where a driver has caused a
collision after losing control. Some criteria are more obvious while
others haven't always been clear cut.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Sir Tim
2019-06-20 09:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
I think there is only one major question that has been provoked by this
discussion.
If a driver holds on to a position by blocking another driver (forcing
him off track or to take avoiding action or even causing a collision)
how much does it matter whether the blocking was in the offenders
control or not. Instinctively I think that it should matter but it's
less obvious when you start to analyse it.
I think we have seen decisions go both ways where a driver has caused a
collision after losing control. Some criteria are more obvious while
others haven't always been clear cut.
+1
--
Sir Tim
Willsy
2019-06-20 08:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Do you notice that the analysis provided by Palmer (with at least the
acquiescence of F1 if not at its behest) didn't include G forces or
yaw rates? Those could easily have made the case ironclad if it really
was a deliberate move by Vettel instead of a driver just trying to
keep the car off the wall.
Clutch. Straws.
No, actually.
The stewards have access to a lot of data that they haven't shown us.
A second clockwise movement of the steering wheel and a glance in the
mirror prove nothing about what Vettel was doing at the time.
It's quite natural to glance at who might be in the space you're going
into...
...even if you have no way at all to prevent yourself from going there.
And just because he caught one oversteer early on as he re-entered the
tarmac surface, doesn't mean he didn't experience another one.
Palmer never mentions that he "straightens up" the steering only for a
short instant (even in slow motion the wheel was only straight for a
frame or two) and then is immediately steering left again.
He comes on trying to steer as much to the left as he can: he gets a lot
of oversteer and catches it.
He then starts steering left again and why is it that the reason he
opens the wheel for a moment might be oversteer.
We've seen no data that confirms it is anything, and if you actually
watch at full speed...
...as all those other drivers (WDCs included) did!...
...it certainly seems to be a second, smaller oscillation being caught.
Agree. The issue would then be wether or not Vettel 'lucked out' by squeezing
Hamilton, thereby gaining an (unintentional) advantage. In such a scenario,
should he order to give the place to the Hamilton?
Willsy
2019-06-20 08:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Willsy
I think it was harsh. I'm not a fan of Vettel, I think he was a total
a-hole when he was racing with Webber, but he seems to have matured into
a decent guy since then. I played the incident back over and over and
could not convince myself there was a deliberate action to put Lewis into
the wall.
Deliberate block or not, he stuffed up under pressure, completely left
the track, and rejoined without any disadvantage despite having gone 4
wheels over. Just that should have something covered in the rules if
there isn't.
It's a fair point.

Brundle made that point that at the speed they were travelling (~100 mph?)
it takes a certain amount of time (and therefore distance) to establish
control of the car. It looked like the front of the car had grip, but the
rear didn't. And hence the snatch to the right on the steering wheel.

The problem seems to be that that part of the track is so narrow. If it were
Paul Ricard (for example) HAM would have gone wide, possibly off the track.

In such a case, what would the rules say? Would VET have got a penalty? Or,
would it be seen as VET gaining an unfair advantage? I'd posit the latter.

Is there any such rule whereby the stewards can order a car to give the
position to the opposing car, or does that instruction have to come from the
pitwall?
Heron
2019-06-19 12:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willsy
I think it was harsh. I'm not a fan of Vettel, I think he was a total
a-hole when he was racing with Webber, but he seems to have matured into
a decent guy since then.
Sure, like when he crashes into others, including deliberately
(like Hamilton), takes no responsibility, blames others and
acts like a spoiled child when things don't go his way.

What an idiot!
F
2019-06-19 15:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by Willsy
I think it was harsh. I'm not a fan of Vettel, I think he was a total
a-hole when he was racing with Webber, but he seems to have matured into
a decent guy since then.
Sure, like when he crashes into others, including deliberately
(like Hamilton), takes no responsibility, blames others and
acts like a spoiled child when things don't go his way.
What an idiot!
A second cheat from Germany in a red car who cheats when the going gets
tough.
--
F
Willsy
2019-06-20 08:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by Willsy
I think it was harsh. I'm not a fan of Vettel, I think he was a total
a-hole when he was racing with Webber, but he seems to have matured into
a decent guy since then.
Sure, like when he crashes into others, including deliberately
(like Hamilton), takes no responsibility, blames others and
acts like a spoiled child when things don't go his way.
What an idiot!
Are you referring the HAM/VET incident in Baku?

If you want discuss drivers that deliberately crash into other drivers,
may I suggest you take a look at Perez?
Loading...