Today's F1 Grand Prix on C4

[Bold Seagull]

Obviously Hamilton is our man, and Vettel is the nasty German, but I still like him. It was stupid, petulant, but there was something very raw and passionate about getting that angry - I can sort of relate to that pure competitiveness.

In the great history of spats in F1, at that speed it was hardly the most dangerous thing a driver has done or attempted to do to another. He should be punished further I think, but I'm not going to denigrate him too much, it has all the hallmarks of a cracking battle.

Had Lewis's team or Lewis himself not made a basic error with the headrest, it wouldn't have even been an issue to them.

 

[Jim D]

Obviously Hamilton is our man, and Vettel is the nasty German, but I still like him. It was stupid, petulant, but there was something very raw and passionate about getting that angry - I can sort of relate to that pure competitiveness.

In the great history of spats in F1, at that speed it was hardly the most dangerous thing a driver has done or attempted to do to another. He should be punished further I think, but I'm not going to denigrate him too much, it has all the hallmarks of a cracking battle.

Had Lewis's team or Lewis himself not made a basic error with the headrest, it wouldn't have even been an issue to them.

I remember that Prost once drove Senna off the track and had them both retire at the start of the last GP of the year when he was ahead on points - and Senna returned the favour in similar circumstances the following year. Of course both claimed it was an accident.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

There was never 40 cars in a race. There were a few races here and there that may have had 40 entries at the start of the weekend, but the grid has always been capped at 26 cars. Whenever they had more than 26 enter, they had pre-qualifying sessions to weed out the slowest cars.

I also don't ever remember 3 car teams. 1 car teams were allowed, but two car teams have been the maximum for as long as I can remember watching (earliest F1 memories being Senna in a JPS Lotus).

I can't give you concrete evidence so I apologise, however;

Sixty years ago, Mercedes were entering as many as four cars per race while BRM stretched as far as five in the early-1970s.

Also, and again, you'll have to take my word for it, or not, back in the day there was never a maximum limit on the amount of cars allowed to race.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Data from Hamilton's car confirms he didn't 'brake test' Vettel as he didn't hit the brakes at all, he just didn't accelerate out of the corner as he would normally - which is his right not to do.

 

[Easy 10]

If it was an insurance jobbie, Vettel wouldn't have a leg to stand on, the petulant prick. He should be docked his points from the race. Obviously this would be illegal though, as he was in a Ferrari.

 

[Hillian1]

Maybe but bearing in mind it's nothing to do with exhaust but by the air disturbance caused by the car in front. F1 car's top speed is close to 100mph more than Formula E!!

I’m sure I’ve heard Brundle talk about Hot, Dirty air having an effect on the following cars performance due to cooling issues.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Data from Hamilton's car confirms he didn't 'brake test' Vettel as he didn't hit the brakes at all, he just didn't accelerate out of the corner as he would normally - which is his right not to do.

Doesn't really make a difference, German driver + Ferrari = out of the shit.

 

[Marshy]

I’m sure I’ve heard Brundle talk about Hot, Dirty air having an effect on the following cars performance due to cooling issues.

you would be correct, they are always talking about running in dirty air and the effects it has on the car.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

If it was an insurance jobbie, Vettel wouldn't have a leg to stand on, the petulant prick. He should be docked his points from the race. Obviously this would be illegal though, as he was in a Ferrari.

I was stunned when he only got a 10 second stop / go penalty. I thought they would disqualify him. He deliberately drove into the side of another car for God's sake!

 

[Hillian1]

I was stunned when he only got a 10 second stop / go penalty. I thought they would disqualify him. He deliberately drove into the side of another car for God's sake!

Motorsport Magazine were saying on Twitter the stop go was for hitting Hamilton at the rear only, so the FIA could, if it so wished, level further punishment for the sideswipe and also for overtaking Hamilton behind the Safety Car.

Whether they will or not though remains to be seen.

But I must say, this F1 thread is still gong the day after the race with people posting I’ve never seen on F1 threads so it can only be a good thing if it generates interest.

 

[Triggaaar]

But I must say, this F1 thread is still gong the day after the race with people posting I’ve never seen on F1 threads so it can only be a good thing if it generates interest.

I understand your point, but I disagree because if the FIA don't do anything about it, I won't bother watching F1. What's their goal, to have people watch F1 or slag it off?

I disagree with the saying 'there's no such things as bad publicity'.
I don't think the publicity FIFA has had has been good for football.

All I'm interested in here is whether the punishment the FIA give out is fair or not. If the sport has no fairness, there's no point.

 

[Mackenzie]

Motorsport Magazine were saying on Twitter the stop go was for hitting Hamilton at the rear only, so the FIA could, if it so wished, level further punishment for the sideswipe and also for overtaking Hamilton behind the Safety Car.

Whether they will or not though remains to be seen.

But I must say, this F1 thread is still gong the day after the race with people posting I’ve never seen on F1 threads so it can only be a good thing if it generates interest.

The story has piqued my interest in a sport I would usually not bother with, so you could be right.

 

[Easy 10]

I was stunned when he only got a 10 second stop / go penalty. I thought they would disqualify him. He deliberately drove into the side of another car for God's sake!

Well, like I say, he's in a Ferrari. They have their own rules.

 

[Audax]

I can't give you concrete evidence so I apologise, however;

Also, and again, you'll have to take my word for it, or not, back in the day there was never a maximum limit on the amount of cars allowed to race.

Formula 1's been through a few eras, especially in the really early days. So for clarity, I'm talking about the F1 era as governed by the Concorde Agreement (and it's successors) that came in from 1981. I know that way back in the days of front-engine, non-wing, cars that the manufacturers could and did enter as many cars as they wanted (either on their own, or via customers). Anyway, from the Concorde perspective you're looking at nearly 40 years worth of F1 with 26 car max grid and two car max teams.

I am of course aware of the pre-Concorde period when rules were more open. For example, Frank Williams originally started out by buying cars from another team and running them under his own banner.

Heading off on a semi-related tangent: I'm personally in favour of customer cars being brought back in some form. The success of Haas shows the benefit, given the loophole (since closed) they exploited to run their first season with what was effectively a customer Ferrari (as well as the history of Sauber and Toro Rosso both running hand-me-down cars at points; both probably wouldn't be around today otherwise). I've always felt it incredibly hypocritical when Williams have opposed customer cars given the origins of both of Williams' F1 teams being with customer cars (the original team that became Walter Wolf Racing ran a Brabham in it's first year, and then customer March cars; the first year of what is now Williams F1 was also with a customer March car). I'd probably stipulate that customer cars must have in-house aero on top of the chassis, as well as place a time limit on how long they can run a customer chassis (say, three years - after which the team must self-construct). I'd probably also exclude the top-three constructors from being allowed to sell a chassis (so no customer Mercedes, Ferrari, or Red Bull cars), and define "top 3" in a similar way to how they define "top 10" for multi-season prize money fund (so any team that finishes in the top 3 in 2 of the previous 3 seasons).

 

[Audax]

On a completely separate note: Jean Todt has no influence on the actual day-to-day running of F1. He's deliberately stayed hands-off mostly, and when he does get involved it's at a very high level. There's absolutely nothing to find in terms of conspiracy theories of Todt's Ferrari history influencing the Stewards' decisions during the race. The leniency of Vettel's decision (assuming you think it's lenient; I do) is actually due to the penalties available to the Stewards being tightly defined in the rulebook. IIRC to DQ Vettel they would have to prove he *intentionally* drove into Hamilton, and I think they would have difficulty doing that given it's pretty clear it happened only because he was so busy flailing his hands at Hamilton that he bumped the steering.

Vettel 100% in the wrong, and I believe the Stewards hit him with the maximum penalty they could given what they could actually prove. It's just a crying shame that the problem Hamilton had with the head rest, and the timing of the Vettel decision, (again because of reasonably tightly defined rules) allowed Vettel to run on a clear track longer than Hamilton and thus come out ahead of Hamilton when justice would have dictated Vettel finish behind Hamilton.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

On a completely separate note: Jean Todt has no influence on the actual day-to-day running of F1. He's deliberately stayed hands-off mostly, and when he does get involved it's at a very high level. There's absolutely nothing to find in terms of conspiracy theories of Todt's Ferrari history influencing the Stewards' decisions during the race. The leniency of Vettel's decision (assuming you think it's lenient; I do) is actually due to the penalties available to the Stewards being tightly defined in the rulebook. IIRC to DQ Vettel they would have to prove he *intentionally* drove into Hamilton, and I think they would have difficulty doing that given it's pretty clear it happened only because he was so busy flailing his hands at Hamilton that he bumped the steering.

Vettel 100% in the wrong, and I believe the Stewards hit him with the maximum penalty they could given what they could actually prove. It's just a crying shame that the problem Hamilton had with the head rest, and the timing of the Vettel decision, (again because of reasonably tightly defined rules) allowed Vettel to run on a clear track longer than Hamilton and thus come out ahead of Hamilton when justice would have dictated Vettel finish behind Hamilton.

Thank you for a very well documented reply! However on your very last point regarding Vettel, they could have black flagged him, the 10 second penalty was the least they could have done.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Thank you for a very well documented reply! However on your very last point regarding Vettel, they could have black flagged him, the 10 second penalty was the least they could have done.

And it was obvious that Vettel deliberately drove into Hamilton's car after he shunted him from behind... why did he drive alongside otherwise? And how on earth did he suddenly swerve to the right when he was alongside?

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

I would think the main reason Vet got away with it is because he didn't appear to cause any significant damage to Ham's car (unless the contact did shake Ham's headrest out of place which cost him time later on). Had he driven into the side of Ham and compromised his car I think that would have resulted in a greater punishment.

Personally I enjoy seeing this sort of action, drivers losing their temper etc so I wouldn't want to see it punished too harshly

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I would think the main reason Vet got away with it is because he didn't appear to cause any significant damage to Ham's car (unless the contact did shake Ham's headrest out of place which cost him time later on). Had he driven into the side of Ham and compromised his car I think that would have resulted in a greater punishment.

Personally I enjoy seeing this sort of action, drivers losing their temper etc so I wouldn't want to see it punished too harshly

They should go the whole hog and make it exactly like Mario Karts.

 

[Hillian1]

And it was obvious that Vettel deliberately drove into Hamilton's car after he shunted him from behind... why did he drive alongside otherwise? And how on earth did he suddenly swerve to the right when he was alongside?

He will simply say that his hands were not on the wheel as he was waving them at Hamilton in frustration.

Although the telemetry from the car should be able to tell if there was any pressure exerted onto the wheel because it showed that Rosberg had not applied pressure last year when he failed to turn forcing Lewis to crash into him.