F1 thread - 2019 Season

[1.618034]

Ferrari only have themselves to blame, again. The choice to start on the soft tyres meant their hard tyres were ten laps older than Verstappen's at the end and that, combined with the better chassis of the Red Bull and slip-stream/DRS, is why he was able to pass him. He was miles faster at the end.

I've just watched it again on C4 and DC said that Max was "too fair" on the previous lap when he left him loads of room. But that time he's again ahead by the apex and has the inside line... But he was going in hotter so went deeper. But not out of control, at all. It's then up to Leclerc to keep fighting around the outside or lift off and accept your fate. To his credit he kept at it, but it was already over. Verstappen didn't have to leave him any room and watching his steering wheel he had full lock on and kept a constant radius through the corner. As Mark webber said in commentary "Check-Mate".

I can't believe that anyone, outside Ferrari, would think there was anything wrong with it. Actually I'd quite like to hear what "Not like the old days" Vettel says this time...?

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

Ferrari only have themselves to blame, again. The choice to start on the soft tyres meant their hard tyres were ten laps older than Verstappen's at the end and that, combined with the better chassis of the Red Bull and slip-stream/DRS, is why he was able to pass him. He was miles faster at the end.

I've just watched it again on C4 and DC said that Max was "too fair" on the previous lap when he left him loads of room. But that time he's again ahead by the apex and has the inside line... But he was going in hotter so went deeper. But not out of control, at all. It's then up to Leclerc to keep fighting around the outside or lift off and accept your fate. To his credit he kept at it, but it was already over. Verstappen didn't have to leave him any room and watching his steering wheel he had full lock on and kept a constant radius through the corner. As Mark webber said in commentary "Check-Mate".

I can't believe that anyone, outside Ferrari, would think there was anything wrong with it. Actually I'd quite like to hear what "Not like the old days" Vettel says this time...?

I suggest you watch the manoeuvre again.
Leclerc literally has nowhere to go

 

[bluealf]

He does turn in but only when Leclerc runs out of road

So he should have braked then :)

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

So he should have braked then :)

He did brake? The problem is he turns but verstappen keeps going straight until Leclerc runs out of road and they hit
Unless you want him to stop on track that is which means everybody should just park the bus on the apex so to speak

 

[bluealf]

He did brake? The problem is he turns but verstappen keeps going straight until Leclerc runs out of road and they hit
Unless you want him to stop on track that is which means everybody should just park the bus on the apex so to speak

I still think you are looking at the incident with your Ferrari glasses and hat on, he was done like a kipper on the inside and choose to try and defend from the outside and he just was never going to be able to do that, you say Verstappen went straight but I think you are exaggerating that a little.

For a guy that has bemoaned the lack of racing excitement all season, it is a strange stance tbh.

A great move rewarded with the victory, I felt for the boy as he drove well but Ferrari probably made an error with the tyres and he was struggling in the later stages.

I will go and look at it one final time and see if I can spot your complaints :)

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

I still think you are looking at the incident with your Ferrari glasses and hat on, he was done like a kipper on the inside and choose to try and defend from the outside and he just was never going to be able to do that, you say Verstappen went straight but I think you are exaggerating that a little.

For a guy that has bemoaned the lack of racing excitement all season, it is a strange stance tbh.

A great move rewarded with the victory, I felt for the boy as he drove well but Ferrari probably made an error with the tyres and he was struggling in the later stages.

I will go and look at it one final time and see if I can spot your complaints :)

Max made a daring move, which I'm not really against but I've seen that move done before where the attacking driver ensures the the defending driver has nowhere to go on track.
You legally have to leave the other car space on the track otherwise you're breaking the rules.
Rosbergb did it loads to Lewis where he basically pushed him off the track but called it 'closing the door'

Btw I just wanna make the point I didn't want a penalty, but if you're following the letter of the law like the FIA did at Canada rather than letting them race, I can't see how it isn't a pen.

 

[bluealf]

Max made a daring move, which I'm not really against but I've seen that move done before where the attacking driver ensures the the defending driver has nowhere to go on track.
You legally have to leave the other car space on the track otherwise you're breaking the rules.
Rosbergb did it loads to Lewis where he basically pushed him off the track but called it 'closing the door'

Btw I just wanna make the point I didn't want a penalty, but if you're following the letter of the law like the FIA did at Canada rather than letting them race, I can't see how it isn't a pen.

You keep mentioning Canada but that is such a different scenario to yesterday, Vettel made a fuck up under pressure and left the track and swerved back on in front of another car, making that car go towards the wall.

How is that comparable to Verstappen taking LeClerc on the inside and then having the Ferrari turn into him 3/4's of the way through the bend?

Vastly different incidents, people will start to say you are just pissed that Ferrari got the wrong end of both decisions :p

 

[1.618034]

I suggest you watch the manoeuvre again.
Leclerc literally has nowhere to go

He should've taken the inside line then and made Max go around the outside. But he didn't, mainly because at that corner the Ferrari was slower on the exit when it took the inside, so all race the Ferraris were both taking the wide line. That's fine if you're on your own, but if you're under attack from a much faster car then you need to defend the inside. The reason he didn't is because if he had, then Max would've then had him at the next corner instead.

I've watched it multiple times mate. Here you go.... https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/f1/11751970/verstappen-leads-in-austria

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

You keep mentioning Canada but that is such a different scenario to yesterday, Vettel made a fuck up under pressure and left the track and swerved back on in front of another car, making that car go towards the wall.

How is that comparable to Verstappen taking LeClerc on the inside and then having the Ferrari turn into him 3/4's of the way through the bend?

Vastly different incidents, people will start to say you are just pissed that Ferrari got the wrong end of both decisions :p

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

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

He should've taken the inside line then and made Max go around the outside. But he didn't, mainly because at that corner the Ferrari was slower on the exit when it took the inside, so all race the Ferraris were both taking the wide line. That's fine if you're on your own, but if you're under attack from a much faster car then you need to defend the inside. The reason he didn't is because if he had, then Max would've then had him at the next corner instead.

I've watched it multiple times mate. Here you go.... https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/f1/11751970/verstappen-leads-in-austria

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't know why Charles took the outside line mate, perhaps he felt he could get him on the switchback manoeuvre? Could be inexperience also.

My issue is that Max parked the car in such a way that Charles was forced off of the track, there was simply nowhere for Charles to go which is why they collided

 

[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.