F1 thread - 2019 Season

[DrBlueBob]

I think you're missing my point mate.

I'm not a fool I'm well aware that Canada and Austria were different incidents, just hear me out.

What I am saying is by the letter of the law BOTH are penalties. My issue is that in Canada the FIA decided to adhere to the letter of the law strictly rather than allow Lewis and Seb to continue racing.

Now please note that I have no problem with the letter of the law being applied strictly, as long as it is done so CONSISTENTLY.

In Austria yesterday the FIA did not do this, instead of sticking to the letter of the law like they did in Canada, they decided to apply "the spirit of racing" rather than the "letter of the law"

Now if you're asking me, do I prefer the letter of the law to prevail, or the spirit of racing to apply; I will take the latter every single time.

My point is, either apply the letter of the law all of the time, or try to apply the spirit of racing whenever humanly possible.

Don't mix and match the two

I would say that the stewards will disagree with your definition of applying the law. It is a tricky one as I can certainly see your point but I feel the majority don't agree with your view that it should have been a penalty. Notwithstanding that you did not want the race to be decided thusly. As for me, I felt it was firm but fair by Max.

Overall a great race. Shame for the Mercs but it makes everything much more interesting.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

I would say that the stewards will disagree with your definition of applying the law. It is a tricky one as I can certainly see your point but I feel the majority don't agree with your view that it should have been a penalty. Notwithstanding that you did not want the race to be decided thusly. As for me, I felt it was firm but fair by Max.

Overall a great race. Shame for the Mercs but it makes everything much more interesting.

Fair enough mate.
Crux of the issue with Maxs move is that I believe you're supposed to leave 1 ½ cars width when trying to make an overtake. The way he takes that corner I can't see how he isn't in violation of the rules

 

[DrBlueBob]

Fair enough mate.
Crux of the issue with Maxs move is that I believe you're supposed to leave 1 ½ cars width when trying to make an overtake. The way he takes that corner I can't see how he isn't in violation of the rules

That's why I said it was a tricky one. Max doesn't hit the apex but he certainly, (IMHO) had the corner which says Charles could and possibly should have backed off. This is the pinnacle of open cockpit motor sport after all so I can see why he wanted to keep his foot in.
One pundit said that had it been a gravel trap then Charles would have taken a different option but instead tried to battle it out and hope the stewards intervened in his favour. That, again in my opinion, is the polar opposite of the spirit of racing.
Apopros of not very much I believe Max has been on the wrong end of a few decisions, Monza springs to mind, maybe against Bottas.
I understand that it is a cars width not 50% more than that. As usual, I could be wrong.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

That's why I said it was a tricky one. Max doesn't hit the apex but he certainly, (IMHO) had the corner which says Charles could and possibly should have backed off. This is the pinnacle of open cockpit motor sport after all so I can see why he wanted to keep his foot in.
One pundit said that had it been a gravel trap then Charles would have taken a different option but instead tried to battle it out and hope the stewards intervened in his favour. That, again in my opinion, is the polar opposite of the spirit of racing.
Apopros of not very much I believe Max has been on the wrong end of a few decisions, Monza springs to mind, maybe against Bottas.
I understand that it is a cars width not 50% more than that. As usual, I could be wrong.

My problem here is that just because Max has the corner it doesn't mean he's entitled to do what he likes on said corner.
He drives straight on and then turns at the precise moment where Charles has ran out of road, this is why in my opinion he forced him wide or outside the track limits.

Had verstappen turned once he hit the apex there would have been space and I suspect max would still have emerged out of the corner leading the race

 

[DrBlueBob]

My problem here is that just because Max has the corner it doesn't mean he's entitled to do what he likes on said corner.
He drives straight on and then turns at the precise moment where Charles has ran out of road, this is why in my opinion he forced him wide or outside the track limits.

Had verstappen turned once he hit the apex there would have been space and I suspect max would still have emerged out of the corner leading the race

I can't disagree with what you have said and the fact that the stewards did not announce their decision until three hours after the race had ended suggests that it is not totally cut and dried. I still am of the belief that it was ultimately fair enough to not warrant sanction. Coupled with the fact that the stewards have access to data and telemtry that we do not. Also, dare I say that they are vastly experienced in their field and probably have more knowledge you or I. I have been watching F1 for more decades than I care to remember btw.

Furthermore, given how F1 is trying to make the racing more interesting I think it would be a bit of an own goal if they were to interpret the rules and apply them in the manner that you are saying is the letter of the law. For the record I do not particularly like Ferrari but I hope I am being impartial here.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

I can't disagree with what you have said and the fact that the stewards did not announce their decision until three hours after the race had ended suggests that it is not totally cut and dried. I still am of the belief that it was ultimately fair enough to not warrant sanction. Coupled with the fact that the stewards have access to data and telemtry that we do not. Also, dare I say that they are vastly experienced in their field and probably have more knowledge you or I. I have been watching F1 for more decades than I care to remember btw.

Furthermore, given how F1 is trying to make the racing more interesting I think it would be a bit of an own goal if they were to interpret the rules and apply them in the manner that you are saying is the letter of the law. For the record I do not particularly like Ferrari but I hope I am being impartial here.

Your last paragraph is where I am in total agreement. I personally want to see sanctions as a last resort; which is why I bring up the Canada incident that seems to go against the idea that F1 is trying to make racing more interesting because they seem to be incapable of doing so consistently.

For the record I do not support teams because I think trying to apply the same tribalism from football to formula 1 doesn't work on the basis of teams. I'm more of a fan of particular drivers and mostly just good racing

 

[bluealf]

I think you're missing my point mate.

I'm not a fool I'm well aware that Canada and Austria were different incidents, just hear me out.

What I am saying is by the letter of the law BOTH are penalties. My issue is that in Canada the FIA decided to adhere to the letter of the law strictly rather than allow Lewis and Seb to continue racing.

Now please note that I have no problem with the letter of the law being applied strictly, as long as it is done so CONSISTENTLY.

In Austria yesterday the FIA did not do this, instead of sticking to the letter of the law like they did in Canada, they decided to apply "the spirit of racing" rather than the "letter of the law"

Now if you're asking me, do I prefer the letter of the law to prevail, or the spirit of racing to apply; I will take the latter every single time.

My point is, either apply the letter of the law all of the time, or try to apply the spirit of racing whenever humanly possible.

Don't mix and match the two

This is where we disagree massively as I do not see any law being broken by Verstappen, none. So there is no need for the consistency as it wasn't an offence but a brilliant bit of overtaking.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

This is where we disagree massively as I do not see any law being broken by Verstappen, none. So there is no need for the consistency as it wasn't an offence but a brilliant bit of overtaking.

We will have to agree to disagree as if you watch the overtake verstappen waits until Leclerc has run out of road until he turns.
It was not too dissimilar to what Rosberg did to Lewis a few years ago expect Hamilton hit him more forcefully and Rosberg came off worse

 

[DrBlueBob]

Your last paragraph is where I am in total agreement. I personally want to see sanctions as a last resort; which is why I bring up the Canada incident that seems to go against the idea that F1 is trying to make racing more interesting because they seem to be incapable of doing so consistently.

For the record I do not support teams because I think trying to apply the same tribalism from football to formula 1 doesn't work on the basis of teams. I'm more of a fan of particular drivers and mostly just good racing

I am in full accord with your last point especially.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Have any Bluemooners been to the British Grand Prox via public transport. I am just wondering on the best way of getting there for a week on Sunday.