Discussion:
Bottom line on Vet penalty - alternatives?
Add Reply
larkim
2019-06-11 09:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was correct
or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it sucked because it
took the life out of the race.

That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for it, and
probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard, wheel to wheel
racing.

With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to have the
driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds by reference to some
sort of lap delta based on some recent laps (e.g. average three fastest of
previous 5 whole laps?) within the next 3 laps, or take 5s added on at the
end.

Vettel could have fallen back and then tried to to regain position.

It might not have been particularly exciting to watch, though would have been
better than just watching Hamilton trail Seb, and would have allowed the
leading driver taking the chequered flag to be the winner.
CS
2019-06-11 10:21:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Cede the place he should of lost and let them fight it out, which would probably be around the same as giving up 3 laps of recent delta - say 1.5 seconds. Would be interesting to see if Vettel, with the faster straight line speed, could have got past given the Mercedes faster long run race pace on Friday, and as demonstrated by LH when he made up time after the pit stops.
larkim
2019-06-11 10:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that circumstance, as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage or similar.

OTOH, given that the penalty was for a safety infraction (and therefore, should carry the highest sanction if the aim is to prevent unsafe actions), maybe something more draconian is actually warranted in that situation.
~misfit~
2019-06-11 13:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that circumstance, as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage or similar.
Actually it was - leaving the track and rejoining in a dangerous manner to prevent losing a position.
Post by larkim
OTOH, given that the penalty was for a safety infraction (and therefore, should carry the highest sanction if the aim is to prevent unsafe actions), maybe something more draconian is actually warranted in that situation.
Yep. They gave him the lightest penalty under the rules.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
larkim
2019-06-11 14:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that circumstance, as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage or similar.
Actually it was - leaving the track and rejoining in a dangerous manner to prevent losing a position.
No it wasn't, the penalty was for returning to the track in an unsafe manner
the loss of position part isn't part of the described sanction.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
OTOH, given that the penalty was for a safety infraction (and therefore, should carry the highest sanction if the aim is to prevent unsafe actions), maybe something more draconian is actually warranted in that situation.
Yep. They gave him the lightest penalty under the rules.
--
Which is odd, don't you think - accepting that in the end Hamilton was not
harmed in any way at all.
Heron
2019-06-11 19:20:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that circumstance, as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage or similar.
Actually it was - leaving the track and rejoining in a dangerous manner to prevent losing a position.
No it wasn't, the penalty was for returning to the track in an unsafe manner
the loss of position part isn't part of the described sanction.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
OTOH, given that the penalty was for a safety infraction (and therefore, should carry the highest sanction if the aim is to prevent unsafe actions), maybe something more draconian is actually warranted in that situation.
Yep. They gave him the lightest penalty under the rules.
--
Which is odd, don't you think - accepting that in the end Hamilton was not
harmed in any way at all.
Wrong yet again. Hamilton said he forced him into a
mistake and was accordingly intending to pass him there.
larkim
2019-06-12 05:51:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that circumstance, as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage or similar.
Actually it was - leaving the track and rejoining in a dangerous manner to prevent losing a position.
No it wasn't, the penalty was for returning to the track in an unsafe manner
the loss of position part isn't part of the described sanction.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
OTOH, given that the penalty was for a safety infraction (and therefore, should carry the highest sanction if the aim is to prevent unsafe actions), maybe something more draconian is actually warranted in that situation.
Yep. They gave him the lightest penalty under the rules.
--
Which is odd, don't you think - accepting that in the end Hamilton was not
harmed in any way at all.
Wrong yet again. Hamilton said he forced him into a
mistake and was accordingly intending to pass him there.
Which bit is wrong? Hamilton wasn't harmed (as in, physically harmed).

His race / outcome may have been harmed, but that's not what I meant.

The punishment was NOT given for retaining an advantage etc, read the
stewards decision.
Alan Baker
2019-06-13 03:56:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that circumstance,
as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage or similar.
Actually it was - leaving the track and rejoining in a dangerous
manner to prevent losing a position.
No it wasn't, the penalty was for returning to the track in an unsafe manner
the loss of position part isn't part of the described sanction.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
OTOH, given that the penalty was for a safety infraction (and
therefore, should carry the highest sanction if the aim is to
prevent unsafe actions), maybe something more draconian is actually
warranted in that situation.
Yep. They gave him the lightest penalty under the rules.
--
  Which is odd, don't you think - accepting that in the end Hamilton
was not
harmed in any way at all.
Wrong yet again. Hamilton said he forced him into a
mistake and was accordingly intending to pass him there.
I know Hamilton said the first part about forcing Vettel, but I'd like
to see a reference for the second part.
Bigbird
2019-06-13 10:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that
circumstance, as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage
or similar.
Actually it was - leaving the track and rejoining in a
dangerous manner to prevent losing a position.
No it wasn't, the penalty was for returning to the track in an
unsafe manner the loss of position part isn't part of the
described sanction.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
OTOH, given that the penalty was for a safety infraction (and
therefore, should carry the highest sanction if the aim is to
prevent unsafe actions), maybe something more draconian is
actually warranted in that situation.
Yep. They gave him the lightest penalty under the rules.
--
  Which is odd, don't you think - accepting that in the end
Hamilton was not harmed in any way at all.
Wrong yet again. Hamilton said he forced him into a
mistake and was accordingly intending to pass him there.
I know Hamilton said the first part about forcing Vettel, but I'd
like to see a reference for the second part.
You could just watch the video. It's pretty obvious to anyone who has
watched a race or two.
--
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.
Alan Baker
2019-06-13 16:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that
circumstance, as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage
or similar.
Actually it was - leaving the track and rejoining in a
dangerous manner to prevent losing a position.
No it wasn't, the penalty was for returning to the track in an
unsafe manner the loss of position part isn't part of the
described sanction.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
OTOH, given that the penalty was for a safety infraction (and
therefore, should carry the highest sanction if the aim is to
prevent unsafe actions), maybe something more draconian is
actually warranted in that situation.
Yep. They gave him the lightest penalty under the rules.
--
  Which is odd, don't you think - accepting that in the end
Hamilton was not harmed in any way at all.
Wrong yet again. Hamilton said he forced him into a
mistake and was accordingly intending to pass him there.
I know Hamilton said the first part about forcing Vettel, but I'd
like to see a reference for the second part.
You could just watch the video. It's pretty obvious to anyone who has
watched a race or two.
I knew you couldn't actually support it.

Let's see if Heron can.

:-)

geoff
2019-06-11 23:20:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that circumstance, as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage or similar.
Actually it was - leaving the track and rejoining in a dangerous manner to prevent losing a position.
No it wasn't, the penalty was for returning to the track in an unsafe manner
the loss of position part isn't part of the described sanction.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
OTOH, given that the penalty was for a safety infraction (and therefore, should carry the highest sanction if the aim is to prevent unsafe actions), maybe something more draconian is actually warranted in that situation.
Yep. They gave him the lightest penalty under the rules.
--
Which is odd, don't you think - accepting that in the end Hamilton was not
harmed in any way at all.
Apart from being impeded, and having VET 'let off' for an error, and for
cutting thecorner.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-13 03:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by larkim
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that circumstance,
as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage or similar.
Actually it was - leaving the track and rejoining in a dangerous manner
to prevent losing a position.
Wrong. He couldn't prevent himself from rejoining the track in that
manner. He was off the gas, on the brakes and turning to the left as
much as was possible while he was on the grass:

<https://f1bythenumbers.com/2019-canadian-gp-was-vettels-penalty-correctly-awarded/>
Alan Baker
2019-06-13 03:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
I think ceding the place is wrong as a penalty in that circumstance,
as it is not for gaining an unfair advantage or similar.
OTOH, given that the penalty was for a safety infraction (and
therefore, should carry the highest sanction if the aim is to prevent
unsafe actions), maybe something more draconian is actually warranted
in that situation.
If you're going to start penalizing drivers for impinging on safety when
they make an honest driving mistake, you're changing the whole game.
RzR
2019-06-11 11:14:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was correct
or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it sucked because it
took the life out of the race.
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for it, and
probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard, wheel to wheel
racing.
With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to have the
driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds by reference to some
sort of lap delta based on some recent laps (e.g. average three fastest of
previous 5 whole laps?) within the next 3 laps, or take 5s added on at the
end.
Vettel could have fallen back and then tried to to regain position.
It might not have been particularly exciting to watch, though would have been
better than just watching Hamilton trail Seb, and would have allowed the
leading driver taking the chequered flag to be the winner.
alternative? win by 5.001 seconds instead of whining...
~misfit~
2019-06-11 13:42:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was correct
or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it sucked because it
took the life out of the race.
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for it, and
probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard, wheel to wheel
racing.
With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to have the
driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds by reference to some
sort of lap delta based on some recent laps (e.g. average three fastest of
previous 5 whole laps?) within the next 3 laps, or take 5s added on at the
end.
Vettel could have fallen back and then tried to to regain position.
It might not have been particularly exciting to watch, though would have been
better than just watching Hamilton trail Seb, and would have allowed the
leading driver taking the chequered flag to be the winner.
alternative? win by 5.001 seconds instead of whining...
Touche.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
Bigbird
2019-06-11 11:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was
correct or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it
sucked because it took the life out of the race.
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for
it, and probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard,
wheel to wheel racing.
With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to
have the driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds by
reference to some sort of lap delta based on some recent laps (e.g.
average three fastest of previous 5 whole laps?) within the next 3
laps, or take 5s added on at the end.
I foresee many issues with such an idea if it leads to attempting to
slow up the field while you spend your penalty in order to minimise the
damage. Track position is just so important in F1.

Have you seen what they introduced in MotoGP? The penalty loop. I think
it is intended to cost about three seconds. That can be quite a lot of
places in lower categories. It's an idea that I liked for F1 many years
ago but seemed it might be rather costly to implement. Of course there
may be alternatives such as reduced speed while staying off the racing
line for a portion of the straight.

Moto GP also implement some very specific time penalties for gaining an
advantage.
Post by larkim
Vettel could have fallen back and then tried to to regain position.
It might not have been particularly exciting to watch, though would
have been better than just watching Hamilton trail Seb, and would
have allowed the leading driver taking the chequered flag to be the
winner.
--
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.
larkim
2019-06-11 14:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was
correct or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it
sucked because it took the life out of the race.
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for
it, and probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard,
wheel to wheel racing.
With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to
have the driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds by
reference to some sort of lap delta based on some recent laps (e.g.
average three fastest of previous 5 whole laps?) within the next 3
laps, or take 5s added on at the end.
I foresee many issues with such an idea if it leads to attempting to
slow up the field while you spend your penalty in order to minimise the
damage. Track position is just so important in F1.
Have you seen what they introduced in MotoGP? The penalty loop. I think
it is intended to cost about three seconds. That can be quite a lot of
places in lower categories. It's an idea that I liked for F1 many years
ago but seemed it might be rather costly to implement. Of course there
may be alternatives such as reduced speed while staying off the racing
line for a portion of the straight.
Moto GP also implement some very specific time penalties for gaining an
advantage.
Penalty loop would be good if the infrastructure was already there. And
you could also foresee lots of building of those loops and then not being
used in practice!

I don't necessarily think a speed restriction is impossible these days,
but do agree that any safety aspect of a car going slower and perhaps
trying to retain position might be troublesome.

On most straights though you'd be able to paint up a box to be driven through off the racing line perhaps at a mandated speed, or something
similar.
Bigbird
2019-06-11 15:51:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty
was correct or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty
it sucked because it took the life out of the race.
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media
for it, and probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see
hard, wheel to wheel racing.
With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to
have the driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds
by reference to some sort of lap delta based on some recent laps
(e.g. average three fastest of previous 5 whole laps?) within
the next 3 laps, or take 5s added on at the end.
I foresee many issues with such an idea if it leads to attempting to
slow up the field while you spend your penalty in order to minimise
the damage. Track position is just so important in F1.
Have you seen what they introduced in MotoGP? The penalty loop. I
think it is intended to cost about three seconds. That can be quite
a lot of places in lower categories. It's an idea that I liked for
F1 many years ago but seemed it might be rather costly to
implement. Of course there may be alternatives such as reduced
speed while staying off the racing line for a portion of the
straight.
Moto GP also implement some very specific time penalties for
gaining an advantage.
Penalty loop would be good if the infrastructure was already there.
And you could also foresee lots of building of those loops and then
not being used in practice!
I don't necessarily think a speed restriction is impossible these
days, but do agree that any safety aspect of a car going slower and
perhaps trying to retain position might be troublesome.
On most straights though you'd be able to paint up a box to be driven
through off the racing line perhaps at a mandated speed, or something
similar.
I envisaged them having a limit, 150kmph for example that they would
not be allowed to exceed up to a predetermined point that would equate
approximately to the required time penalty.
--
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.
Heron
2019-06-11 12:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was correct
or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it sucked because it
took the life out of the race.
No it didn't.
Post by larkim
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for it, and
probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard, wheel to wheel
racing.
Again no, it's mostly anti-black guy.
Post by larkim
With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to have the
driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds by reference to some
sort of lap delta based on some recent laps (e.g. average three fastest of
previous 5 whole laps?) within the next 3 laps, or take 5s added on at the
end.
Why would that be preferable, it all worked out fine
just as it is.
Post by larkim
Vettel could have fallen back and then tried to to regain position.
It might not have been particularly exciting to watch, though would have been
better than just watching Hamilton trail Seb, and would have allowed the
leading driver taking the chequered flag to be the winner.
Heron
2019-06-11 20:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was correct
or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it sucked because it
took the life out of the race.
No it didn't.
Meant to, but forgot to, mention that not only did it not
take the life out of the race, it actually made it MORE
exciting to watch Seb desperately try to open a five second
lead on Lewis, which turned out to be a futile effort.
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for it, and
probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard, wheel to wheel
racing.
Again no, it's mostly anti-black guy.
Post by larkim
With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to have the
driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds by reference to some
sort of lap delta based on some recent laps (e.g. average three fastest of
previous 5 whole laps?) within the next 3 laps, or take 5s added on at the
end.
Why would that be preferable, it all worked out fine
just as it is.
Post by larkim
Vettel could have fallen back and then tried to to regain position.
It might not have been particularly exciting to watch, though would have been
better than just watching Hamilton trail Seb, and would have allowed the
leading driver taking the chequered flag to be the winner.
The leading driver WAS in fact LH from the moment the
penalty was imposed, unless and until SB could open a
five second lead.
larkim
2019-06-12 05:54:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was correct
or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it sucked because it
took the life out of the race.
No it didn't.
Meant to, but forgot to, mention that not only did it not
take the life out of the race, it actually made it MORE
exciting to watch Seb desperately try to open a five second
lead on Lewis, which turned out to be a futile effort.
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for it, and
probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard, wheel to wheel
racing.
Again no, it's mostly anti-black guy.
Post by larkim
With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to have the
driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds by reference to some
sort of lap delta based on some recent laps (e.g. average three fastest of
previous 5 whole laps?) within the next 3 laps, or take 5s added on at the
end.
Why would that be preferable, it all worked out fine
just as it is.
Post by larkim
Vettel could have fallen back and then tried to to regain position.
It might not have been particularly exciting to watch, though would have been
better than just watching Hamilton trail Seb, and would have allowed the
leading driver taking the chequered flag to be the winner.
The leading driver WAS in fact LH from the moment the
penalty was imposed, unless and until SB could open a
five second lead.
Well, yes of course. But you know what I meant. The driver physically
ahead on track. I'm not a complete idiot!

As for making the race more exciting - yuo must have been watching a
different race to me, as it was clear that LH was quicker than Seb on the
hard tyres, and would be to the end of the race. I found no excitement at
all in seeing Hamilton comfortably keep up with Vettel.

The only mild excitement was that Leclerc *might* have got within 5s of
Seb.
Alan Baker
2019-06-13 03:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was correct
or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it sucked because it
took the life out of the race.
No it didn't.
Post by larkim
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for it, and
probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard, wheel to wheel
racing.
Again no, it's mostly anti-black guy.
What complete and utter bullshit.
Alan Baker
2019-06-13 03:51:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was correct
or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it sucked because it
took the life out of the race.
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for it, and
probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard, wheel to wheel
racing.
With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to have the
driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds by reference to some
sort of lap delta based on some recent laps (e.g. average three fastest of
previous 5 whole laps?) within the next 3 laps, or take 5s added on at the
end.
Vettel could have fallen back and then tried to to regain position.
It might not have been particularly exciting to watch, though would have been
better than just watching Hamilton trail Seb, and would have allowed the
leading driver taking the chequered flag to be the winner.
If you mean falling back after the incident you're just assuming that
would have changed the penalty. If you mean falling back to prevent the
incident, I'll say it again:

You can't slow much at all on grass.

And yes, he was off the throttle when he was on the grass:


https://f1bythenumbers.com/2019-canadian-gp-was-vettels-penalty-correctly-awarded/
Alan Baker
2019-06-13 03:56:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Bottom line seems to me to be that whether you think the penalty was correct
or not in line with the rules, as a sporting penalty it sucked because it
took the life out of the race.
That's probably the main reason for the distaste on social media for it, and
probably from the ex F1 racers who just want to see hard, wheel to wheel
racing.
With the tech they have these days, would it not be preferable to have the
driver given the choice - give up 5 (or fewer?) seconds by reference to some
sort of lap delta based on some recent laps (e.g. average three fastest of
previous 5 whole laps?) within the next 3 laps, or take 5s added on at the
end.
Vettel could have fallen back and then tried to to regain position.
It might not have been particularly exciting to watch, though would have been
better than just watching Hamilton trail Seb, and would have allowed the
leading driver taking the chequered flag to be the winner.
I could see a relatively simple rule that says if you screw up and must
go off track while a competitor is in close proximity behind (1 second
seems a good figure), you have to give up the place to that competitor.
Loading...