Formula 1 2019

[Oldddudders]

11 hours ago, EddieB said:

Actually the biggest brat/cry baby of the weekend was Kevin Magnussen.  After wrecking his car in Q2, his mechanics worked through the night to get him onto the pit lane for the start. Thanks? No, just a gripe that the car wasn’t quick enough.

 

10 minutes ago, Jonboy said:

Agreed on the Kevin magnasson front, fair play to Gunther Steiner for telling him to shut up in the end...

I loved the fact that the Italian team manager, talking to a Dane, used good colloquial English "Enough is enough!" As an aside, being multilingual is obviously a strength in motor sport. Drivers' Steward Emmanuele Pirro, in his winning Le Mans days, would with his fellow winning drivers attend Place St Nicolas on the Friday before the next year's race, to dedicate the plaque to the winning drivers. Few people knew of this, there were no crowds, and on more than one occasion I watched him give interviews in English, German, French and his native Italian. Those of us who struggle with a second language to note......

[ejstubbs]

I remember thinking something similar back in the 1980s when I was living in Italy.  I think it was Alain Prost I was watching being interviewed on RAI 1 speaking perfectly good Italian* and my first thought was: that's funny, he normally speaks English...oh, hang on...

 

* And bear in mind that he didn't drive for Ferrari until 1990!

[woodenhead]

They speak more than one language because only English is universal when used in international terms.

 

When we speak normally it isn't clear to someone who doesn't speak English what we are saying, but all we have to do is switch to our international style and they understand every bit of it.

 

Here is a sample: 'Hello, do you know the way to the tavern, could you direct me?' 

In international English 'WHERE'S THE PUB'

 

 

[Rugd1022]

Somewhere on youtube there are some very grainy b&w clips of Jochen Rindt being interviewed shortly before he died in 1970 along with a couple of other drivers and hangers on, it veers from English to German and bits of Italian and back again. Very enjoyable to watch, but it sometimes makes me feel a bit of a luddite for not paying more attention at school!

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

8 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

We have heard a lot about "track limits" in recent seasons. Not a mention here. 

No, because it seems they have a strange way of implementing it.

The infringement seems to be 'gaining an advantage by leaving the track limits'. It therefore gets applied to some corners only & also where a driver passes another.

The 'gaining an advantage' bit is a complete joke. If they put all 4 wheels outside the white lines marking the edge of the track anywhere (unless avoiding a collision) then they should get a penalty. The avoiding a collision clause would allow drivers to squeeze each other out when exiting corners & for 1st turn incidents.

Black & white. Easy to implement. Would save all this nonsense.

You would need more stewards to monitor all corners, but junior ones since most would be clear-cut decisions & it is not as if F1 is short of cash.

[njee20]

So you'd further penalise every car that leaves the track...? That seems draconian and daft.

[runs as required]

You all seem a very anti-Ferrari bunch of Benz tifosi here on RMweb.

I confess I've got really bored with the whole predictable thing of FI. I'd hoped for a return to a more exciting changing of positions when Ross Brawn came back to advise on F1 being less processional. 

Lets hope the Le Clercs (and maybe the women) can liven up 4 wheel racing.

 

[Luke Piewalker]

Opinion incoming!

 

Vettel was probably fairly penalised, but the penalty itself robbed us of any racing in the final laps.

I'm not in favour of drivers being told to cede positions, unless it's a clear cut 'you overtook under yellow flags, give it back or we'll be penalised proper'.

I'd like a variation on the new but somewhat underused penalty loop they now have in MotoGP. Basically taking canada as an example you could have a lane round the outside of the hairpin, a couple of bollards you have to go round at the final chicane, or maybe you have to go round into the pit lane exit where Lando Norris went to park his and round that way. Obviously you would need to ensure it was a safe location, as you wouldn't want someone trundling around the run off to the hairpin getting t-boned, and you would need to make sure it added up to an appropriate penalty, but I think it would still be preferable to the blunt instrument of adding time on at the end as you would at least be left with everyone knowing exactly where they were.

[Pete the Elaner]

28 minutes ago, njee20 said:

So you'd further penalise every car that leaves the track...? That seems draconian and daft.

Absolutely I would.

What is daft about it? Why have track limits if you only enforce them in certain places?

It may be draconian but the best rules are those which are easy to enforce. Removing the grey areas would make this easy.

Drivers would adjust instantly.

 

We regularly see cars leave the track as they exit a corner. They all do it so 'none gain an advantage'. So why do they do it then? The truth is they all gain the same advantage, but for some reason (which I find ridiculous) this is deemed ok.

They usually seem to manage within the track limits by the 'wall of champions' & you do not hear of them arguing for that to be moved a bit further out so they can accelerate earlier. The penalty for not keeping within the track there is a damaged car.

[Pete the Elaner]

3 minutes ago, Luke Piewalker said:

Opinion incoming!

 

Vettel was probably fairly penalised, but the penalty itself robbed us of any racing in the final laps.

I'm not in favour of drivers being told to cede positions, unless it's a clear cut 'you overtook under yellow flags, give it back or we'll be penalised proper'.

I'd like a variation on the new but somewhat underused penalty loop they now have in MotoGP. Basically taking canada as an example you could have a lane round the outside of the hairpin, a couple of bollards you have to go round at the final chicane, or maybe you have to go round into the pit lane exit where Lando Norris went to park his and round that way. Obviously you would need to ensure it was a safe location, as you wouldn't want someone trundling around the run off to the hairpin getting t-boned, and you would need to make sure it added up to an appropriate penalty, but I think it would still be preferable to the blunt instrument of adding time on at the end as you would at least be left with everyone knowing exactly where they were.

I have not seen any Moto GP for a while but that sounds like a great idea.

[PaulRhB]

I think it robbed us of Hamilton being pushed to try, he thought about it but he wasn’t going to take a risk because the points were safe.  I’m not surprised Hamilton took it as he probably looked at it as evening out some of the previous clashes  

I’d have left it and maybe just penalised a couple of points IF he finished ahead to reduce the championship advantage but not remove it, the Stewards need discretion with their experience not rigid rules like this. It’s not going to be much  fun if they just play hassling Seb into mistakes. 

The Stewards were right by the rules and making a decision, it’s the system that’s flawed. Alex Wurz has made the best summing up I’ve seen. Whether Hamilton would have got through and made it stick depends on the next corner with how that looked speed wise. 

[njee20]

18 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Absolutely I would.

What is daft about it? Why have track limits if you only enforce them in certain places?

It may be draconian but the best rules are those which are easy to enforce. Removing the grey areas would make this easy.

Drivers would adjust instantly.

 

We regularly see cars leave the track as they exit a corner. They all do it so 'none gain an advantage'. So why do they do it then? The truth is they all gain the same advantage, but for some reason (which I find ridiculous) this is deemed ok.

They usually seem to manage within the track limits by the 'wall of champions' & you do not hear of them arguing for that to be moved a bit further out so they can accelerate earlier. The penalty for not keeping within the track there is a damaged car.

You said everyone leaving the track - Giovanazzi’s spin on Sunday... losing bags of time anyway, and then you give them a penalty?

 

Attempt an overtake, fail to make the turn, you’ve already lost the position and dropped back 3 seconds. Have a penalty too. 

 

Thats a surefire way to turn it into a total procession. 

 

[LNERandBR]

You mainly have track limit issues at places where there's large amounts of tarmac run off. Miss some corners and you just take the fastest route back to the track and don't loose position possibly even extending the gap to your rival as you took a shortest route. Many locations where this is an issue they now have a bollard or a line where they say. 'Go off at that corner and you must go round the bollard to get back to the track.' That natually then prevents the driver from gaining any advantages from missing part of the track out.

 

If there was a gravel trap there you would have been slowed down natually and lost position. If there was a wall there you'd have a big accident and be out of the race. If they could put grass and gravel traps back in on the edges of the tracks there would be less of an issue with Track Limits. Sadly most of the tracks also host Motorbike races and those don't take kindly to suddenly finding grass or gravel when the riders make mistakes. That's why we get lots of run off so when there's a problem cars and bikes have plenty of space to come to a controlled stand.

 

The problem is one of track design and they've had to implement rules to solve those problems. You get far less instences of it at the older tracks.

 

If you had to apply penalties at every case of track infringment the Stewards would be seriously busy and you'd get even less racing then you do now. The opposite is what happened in Indy Car when they went to the US F1 Cicuit. It was a free for all with car's taking their own lines round corners.

[Pete the Elaner]

I have been watching Speedway as long as I can remember. Riders have never been allowed to cross the inside white line, so they simply don't do it.

It does not impose limits which do not exist. It simply enforces those which are there.

 

What happens when they out-brake themselves or spin in Monaco (except at the chicane after the tunnel)? They don't get away with it there & not many crashed out of the race this year. They simply have to adjust their limits, that's all.

[njee20]

And it makes for a ferociously dull race. 

 

Speedway has to be the most polar opposite  example you could possibly think of, and a very different rule.

[woodenhead]

22 minutes ago, njee20 said:

And it makes for a ferociously dull race. 

 

Speedway has to be the most polar opposite  example you could possibly think of, and a very different rule.

Throw enough money into any sport and it becomes boring as one or two teams dominate and rulebooks are weaponised and events become a procession.

 

 

[njee20]

But can you honestly imagine if they started penalising for failed overtakes! It would be a total disaster!

[Roy Langridge]

 

I don't see the issue with what happened and the penalty myself. There are rules and a precedent for the penalties and it was applied. There have been many instances over the years of drivers losing it, forcing another driver off the track as they gather themselves up (or collecting them) and being penalised for it. Nowhere have I ever seen that just because you lost it by accident does a penalty not get applied. As for this talk about geography, I fundamentally disagree that we should treat it differently just because there was a wall there. Say that it is different and drivers will take advantage knowing there will be no penalty.

 

I also think we do not see the full picture. The stewards will have seen when Vetel applied power again. Did he start to apply power before he had gained full control? Grosjean did that a couple of seasons ago, and was penalised for not re-joining the track in a safe manner.

 

I also am against the fact that Ferrari are appealing. It is (now was a result of this?) against the regulations to appeal an in-race penalty for good reason. If that policy changes all hell with break lose in the sport. Go back to Baku and Vettel deliberately driving into Hamilton, the whole result of that race may have been different had Mercedes been able to appeal after the race. As the regulations did not permit it, they didn't. We don't need a situation where the result of a race is decided potentially weeks after a race - that would kill the sport.

 

Roy

Edited June 11, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[Roy Langridge]

2 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

I’d have left it and maybe just penalised a couple of points IF he finished ahead to reduce the championship advantage but not remove it, the Stewards need discretion with their experience not rigid rules like this.

 

If they ever introduce a system where they look a who drivers are, their championship position etc. and then decide the penalty, I am done with the sport.

Roy

Edited June 11, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[LNERandBR]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

What happens when they out-brake themselves or spin in Monaco (except at the chicane after the tunnel)? They don't get away with it there & not many crashed out of the race this year. They simply have to adjust their limits, that's all.

 

Spot on, if there is a wall all the way around on either side of the track then any attempt to go outside the track would be rewarded with a crash. However, remind me how often people overtake in Monaco? 

 

Track limits only apply on some corners because exceeding the limits there gives you an advantage. Competitors will natually do anything they can to get an advantage over their rivals. In other corners exceeding the track limits doesn't gain you any advantage so you get natually penalised for it.

 

You cannot compare that to an Oval as clearly going more inside the oval will gain you an advantage. They therefore must say 'Don't go over this line'.

 

5 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

I also think we do not see the full picture. The stewards will have seen when Vetel applied power again. Did he start to apply power before he had gained full control? Grosjean did that a couple of seasons ago, and was penalised for not rejoicing the track in a safe manner.

 

A very good point here, many pundets mention a kick of oversteer that Vettel got when rejoing the track which caused him to go wider. Was that caused by applying power? We'll never know for sure.

 

Overall, I feel the main thing is Vettel once again made a mistake when he was under pressure and it's that which cost him the race. The penalty is the correct application of the current rules within the sport. Should they be changed is another debate entirely and we shouldn't be looking at that from just this incident alone. You need to look at all other simular situations.

[PaulRhB]

16 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

If they ever introduce a system where they look a who drivers are, their championship position etc. and then decide the penalty, I am done with the sport.

Roy

No I meant they look only at the finish position of the two involved for an incident like sundays. The discretion would be on whether it had impeded the other ultimately. If they were subsequently passed then ultimately the position was lost anyway. If they lost the opportunity to pass others too was considered it becomes too complicated to decide. 

A stop go wastes far too much time, ceding a place can take laps to decide which then can be a problem near the end. 

Punishing them only if they actually force the other into damaging their car or a mistake might be better and let the rest be considered just blocking?

Edited June 11, 2019 by PaulRhB

[RJS1977]

18 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

Somewhere on youtube there are some very grainy b&w clips of Jochen Rindt being interviewed shortly before he died in 1970 along with a couple of other drivers and hangers on, it veers from English to German and bits of Italian and back again. Very enjoyable to watch, but it sometimes makes me feel a bit of a luddite for not paying more attention at school!

 

 

 

I can remember being told off by a teacher for using French and German in the same sentence....

[melmerby]

2 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I can remember being told off by a teacher for using French and German in the same sentence....

Was that during an English lesson?

[Kingzance]

13 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

No I meant they look only at the finish position of the two involved for an incident like sundays. The discretion would be on whether it had impeded the other ultimately. If they were subsequently passed then ultimately the position was lost anyway. If they lost the opportunity to pass others too was considered it becomes too complicated to decide. 

A stop go wastes far too much time, ceding a place can take laps to decide which then can be a problem near the end. 

Punishing them only if they actually force the other into damaging their car or a mistake might be better and let the rest be considered just blocking?

Earlier in this thread, a contributor wrote about “Ferrari bashing Merc Tiffosi” or words to that effect. In the past, FIA has been deemed synonymous with a Ferrari International Assistance so the arguments are likely to be biased according to which team you prefer / support. More cogently, we have these issues because we have seen motorsport become much safer. Anyone remembering the catch fences comprising wires strung between vertical wooden poles would say that safety has rightly improved. Perhaps an automated penalty issuing system whereby the car flags up an off-course event and time is added for the duration of that “escapade” would remove the questions of unequal penalties? We certainly have the technology to implement that. Clerks of the Courses at drivers’ briefings need to stress that the grey stuff is for the drivers and anything beyond the white lines is not. Drivers show far more caution when the surface is wet!

[njee20]

We need consistent application of penalties, as we saw here. The sport absolutely does not need more penalties, they destroy the racing. You don't want drivers driving cautiously, that's really boring. You want drivers on the edge. It's bad enough they have to manage fuel and tyres, let's not make overtaking far harder, I really can't get my head around anyone thinking that every single trip off the track deserves a penalty.

 

What's the magnitude of the penalty? 5 seconds regardless? Dependant on time off the track as you say? So if you spin, and take 10 seconds to get back on do you get a bigger penalty than someone who's gone too deep following an overtaking attempt? What if you actually do gain an advantage? Same penalty? If so you make take a strategic penalty to get past someone who has an "accidental" one.

 

How confusing would a race be if multiple drivers have penalties, and are close together, it would be unwatchable, and hard enough for the drivers; "Ok Kevin, we're behind Lance, who's got 3 seconds of penalties, and we've got Nico behind us, who's got 8 seconds, so we don't need to worry about him, but 5 seconds up the road is Kimi, who's got 4 seconds, so you need to close him down. You could cut this corner, you'll get ahead and only get a 2 second penalty. Oh, hang on, Lance has run wide, he's now got 7 seconds of penalties, and Lewis is out front, but he just had a major trip off, so has 28 seconds of penalties, so you could win this, if you just finish 14th on the road". Sounds fun. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by njee20