US GP Austin

[chillibowl]

thanks Mike

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

In answer to your first question, the Autosport article quotes Stella, saying that they deliberately didn't tell Norris to give the place back because he believed that it wouldn't have been referred to the Stewards because of anything that Norris did. So when they were advised that the Stewards were investigating, they assumed that it was Verstappen's move that was the subject of the investigation.

do we then take that as an admission that the Mclaren pitwall read the situation incorrectly?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Here it is again at 0.44 sec. with Croft at full throttle.


https://youtu.be/i6TyRf8d7hM?si=SrfE94uexTluDeY0

looks like they both went in super hot...actually quite remarkable that they both went through there with neither locking up!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

thanks Mike



do we then take that as an admission that the Mclaren pitwall read the situation incorrectly?

It turns out that they did, but only because they took a common sense view of the matter. I would have taken the same view as well; in fact, in my few years of racing, one driver did a similar thing on me, and the driver concerned had his licence endorsed for the move. He actually wrote his car, borrowed from a friend, later on on the same lap by running into the back of some back-markers, so he was penalised by the Clerk of the Course giving him a ban - and it was his first race as well.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Except that they DID take it into account (it's there in the decision document that I linked above). They only applied a 5 sec penalty to Lando, rather than the usual 10 sec penalty for overtaking outside the track limits.

If Lando had eased back in behind Max as they rejoined the track, there'd have been no penalty at all.

I think this is the key point. Under the current interpretation of the rules, Norris' pass off track supercedes any action by Max because Max got to the apex first. Rightly or wrongly, Norris broke the current rules in a larger and more obvious way.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

looks like they both went in super hot...actually quite remarkable that they both went through there with neither locking up!

Exactly my point. I don't think Norris was making the corner. He was going off anyway and decided to blast the throtte when off track to get ahead.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

........ he was on the outside and it was the responsibility of Verstappen to leave him sufficient room to negotiate the corner in a safe manner.

Sorry, Mike, but for once I have to disagree. I don't agree that in the situation that occurred (i.e. racing for position) there is any 'responsibility' by a driver to leave enough room for another driver whoever they may be.

I agree with Chilli in post 72.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by morninggents

Sorry, Mike, but for once I have to disagree. I don't agree that in the situation that occurred (i.e. racing for position) there is any 'responsibility' by a driver to leave enough room for another driver whoever they may be.

I agree with Chilli in post 72.

But it's in the rules, Peter; when passing or being passed, a driver has to leave a cars width, and you cannot just "push" another driver off the circuit. The Stewards are just not interpreting it that way. And why Stella felt that his pitwall team didn't need to instruct Norris to hand the place back.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Yes, I read the Stewards' adjudication prior to posting about this; they take into consideration that Verstappen also exceeded track limits, bit they have ignored the fact that the only reason that he did was because he intentionally braked too late in order push Norris off the track. He didn't exceed track limits due to anything that Norris had done.

And I think that Autosport appears to agree; that the rule was never altered to allow drivers such as Verstappen to use it to defend their position. See: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wh...peat/10665281/

Look, I know what you mean but intent is virtually unprovable (although the stewards do have access to live telemetry, according to Brundle on the telecast, so maybe what they saw there had an impact)

TBH I wouldn't hold much reliance on that Autosport article - poorly thought-through, factually incorrect, from a regular Max disliker and the comments on the article sum it up - 90 odd comments, the vast majority bagging the "journalist" for a really poor piece of work.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

why Mclaren didnt tell him to give the spot back and try again. race was drawing to an end sure but he still would have had chances?

Logically, would have been the thing to do but the McLaren pit wall apparently believed that they were in the right - I guess that's another lesson learned the hard way. Interesting that when Horner was asked about it after the race, he pointed out that Max had been penalised for overtaking off track in a previous year and since then, RBR has taken the approach of giving the place back, which I seem to recall happening a couple of times but for the life of me, can't recall where just now.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And as I don't believe the telemetry of either cars at that point have been published or discussed by the Stewards, do we even know that Norris braked too late to manage to negotiate the corner without exceeding track limits?

Brundle said in the commentary that the stewards have live telemetry to work with, throttle, brake traces etc. I reckon that would be right as the FIA "bunker" has that for all cars on a live basis. Don't know whether the stewards actually used it in this case or not but if they did, then it only strengthens the case for them making the right call in accordance with the rules as they stand.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

But it's in the rules, Peter; when passing or being passed, a driver has to leave a cars width, and you cannot just "push" another driver off the circuit. The Stewards are just not interpreting it that way. And why Stella felt that his pitwall team didn't need to instruct Norris to hand the place back.

I'm not stalking you - honest. The relevant section of the driving rules was quoted earlier in the thread - the leaving one car's width applies to the car overtaking - not to the car defending or being overtaken. To me, that's at the core of this whole thing - Max does appear to be gaming the system somewhat, but the rules allow him to do that and he's using them to his advantage (as you'd expect). That isn't his fault though, it's the rules themselves.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Interesting that when Horner was asked about it after the race, he pointed out that Max had been penalised for overtaking off track in a previous year and since then, RBR has taken the approach of giving the place back, which I seem to recall happening a couple of times but for the life of me, can't recall where just now.

at COTA 2017 where Max took a penalty for passing Kimi on the last lap while going off track?

coincidently enough, Garry Connolly who, as well as yesterday i believe, was one of the COTA stewards back in 2017:

Connelly made it clear that he has no regrets about the call made that day.

"I think that's something that always sticks with me, that was a probably one of the toughest decisions I've ever had to take with my colleagues.

"But I still believe we did the right thing, we took the right decision.

"And I'm pretty sure if you speak to Max Verstappen today, he'll agree that in retrospect, it was the right decision."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/ve...67601/5367601/

surprised i found that so quickly as i find looking up old articles on google to be a complete pain these days...

anywho, maybe still an apples and oranges comparison, but i suppose there is consistency here over the years despite there perhaps not being much of it over the course of this weekend!

[bjohnsonsmith]

For comparison, here is the Verstappen/Raikkonen incident at COTA in 2017.

https://youtu.be/2rr1j7Z0ZTM?si=sKmIDdrSiknChPwy

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Logically, would have been the thing to do but the McLaren pit wall apparently believed that they were in the right - I guess that's another lesson learned the hard way.

add that to a ever increasing list of hard lessons vis a vis their less than fully committed attempt at the drivers title this season?

will have to rewatch the last 5 laps, but did Lando have a chance to make up that 5s penalty gap?

even if Mclaren didnt think the problem was on their side (which we infer from them not telling Lando to give the spot back) then surely you still hedge your bets by telling your driver to push, to build up the gap in case a ruling goes the other way? moreso when you have both a speed and tire advantage in those closing laps?

im definitely being hyper critical of Mclaren here but they are my team!

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

at COTA 2017 where Max took a penalty for passing Kimi on the last lap while going off track?

anywho, maybe still an apples and oranges comparison, but i suppose there is consistency here over the years despite there perhaps not being much of it over the course of this weekend!

That's probably the one - I wouldn't expect consistency between now and 2017, because the racing rules have changed since then, with wholesale change at the start of 2022.

I was more referring to RBR's approach since that incident being one of giving the position back on track and then having another go - according to Horner's interview after Sunday's race.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

will have to rewatch the last 5 laps, but did Lando have a chance to make up that 5s penalty gap?(

Depends upon the target outcome. He was faster than Max as he chased him down. He pulled away from Max after the pass. Now how much of that was true pace or did Max assume he was going to get a penalty and didn't push Lando. Who knows. I guess someone can look at their relative pace before and after the pass to answer that question.

In the end, I think Lando was 3-4 seconds ahead of Max at the end of the race. He clearly was trying to pull out a 5 second gap, but he was short, so not enough to outweigh the penalty. I think someone posted that McLaren asked Oscar to not push so as to protect Lando in that the penalty would just put him back behind Max and in front of Oscar (which it did).

Oddly enough, assuming he would have gotten the same 5 second penalty, if that situation had played out much earlier (vs a few laps of attempts), Lando might have had the time to pull out more than five seconds and make the offense worth the penalty!

I "think" someone in the race received a penalty for something, but was able to make it work because what they gained on track outweighed the time penalty. I can't remember who that was? I could be wrong.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I'm not stalking you - honest. The relevant section of the driving rules was quoted earlier in the thread - the leaving one car's width applies to the car overtaking - not to the car defending or being overtaken. To me, that's at the core of this whole thing - Max does appear to be gaming the system somewhat, but the rules allow him to do that and he's using them to his advantage (as you'd expect). That isn't his fault though, it's the rules themselves.

But under the simple responsibility of driving conduct, you should not be able to force a car off the track because of your mistake (braking misfortune) and if the car you forced off is able to rejoin before you, that is not an overtake as such.
It is simply rejoining ahead of the other vehicle.

Norris was not attempting to overtake off the track. Going off the track was a consequence of Max's driving 'error' (assuming it wasn't deliberate, which I think it was because it is a pattern he has used before).
Arguing that 'leaving the gap' only refers to the overtaking car defies the accepted standards of driving conduct in a general sense and is basically supporting the idea that any driver has the right to force another driver off the racing surface in defense of his position.

We all know that this is a nonsense. Yet we have Max, who is willing to push this situation because he is sure that under the current interpretation of the regulations the stewards are working by.

The rules of competition are not the ten commandments. They are guidelines under which the stewards of the meeting can make their decisions.
The responsibility for the conduct on track during the event is in the hands of the race director and the stewards are to judge responsibility for incidents and conduct and make penalty decisions where they deem it appropriate.

In this case I think the decision was wrong.
If they wanted to penalize Lando to keep the actions consistent they could have penalized Max 5 seconds for forcing him off the circuit (impeding another competitor who was trying to overtake him by forcing Lando off the track).

If consistency is their problem, why didn't they penalize Max for forcing Lando off at the first corner after the start?
Because they choose leniency at the first turn, but if they were really consistent the same rule enforcement should apply from lights out to parc ferme.

It's not the rules that are the problem. It is the enforcement and human decision-making process.

What we now have, since this and earlier Brazil 21, is an acceptance for all competitors, at every level of FIA competition, that running a competitor on the outside off the track, then claiming an illegal overtake if he rejoins ahead of the one who forced him off, is a legitimate defense maneuver.

And that is just garbage.

When the rules are enforced in a way that allows the competitors to manipulate the intent of the rules to govern a fair competition the officials are losing the plot.
They have lost sight of why they are there.
It is the responsibility of the officials to interpret the regulations in a way that ensure the competition is run fairly and within the principles of fair competition.

[Tourer]

Good post Teretonga, agree with much of it, except for the fact that the stewards have an agreed driving standards guidelines and, under pressure to be consistent, they apply them (supposedly) the same way, which means that nuance sometimes goes out the window.

The approach for some time (I assume agreed with the teams and drivers) is to be lenient on the first lap.

Maybe this weekend's GP will be a catalyst to look at driving conduct again for next year to deal with the gaming of the system that we saw on Sunday but I think what we got is what happens when there is demand for consistency from teams, as a result rules are drawn up and followed to the letter (to be consistent) by the stewards. Such a set of rules is unlikely to be able to foresee circumstances at every corner of every track in every racing situation.

However, taking a common sense and big picture approach is going to result in (at least claimed) inconsistency on occasions and since we lost Charlie, I don't think that there's been someone involved who the teams would be prepared to give that type of carte blanche to.