[Official] Singapore Grand Prix 2023: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 16 of 23

[Born Racer]

Interesting discussion on whether a move counts as being on the last car you're overtaking or more than one if they're done in one corner. It's true that Norris was denied a chance to come back, which gives weight to the idea he should have given both places back. There is no established precedent for this, though.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

On lap one, Lewis Hamilton went around the outside of Norris and Russell at turn one and pulled alongside Russell to go for third place, but Russell sort of crowded him out although really there wasn't much space to begin with, and Hamilton went around the escape road and came out in third place, ahead of Russell and Norris. For me, it was right that he had to give the place back to Russell as he had been alongside him and gone for a move that wasn't really on. But what I objected to was him also having to give the place back to Norris, considering he was clearly ahead of Norris while going into the corner and him missing the corner was because of Russell being there, rather than anything to do with the overtake on Norris.

Can't put yourself in a bad position and then complain they won't let you back in line. You did it, you suffer with the choice ya made

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

The video is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TmrPvoHSGQ

For me, the move is done on Norris. Russell could have given Hamilton more space and the two of them are contesting the position going into the corner with Norris clearly behind them. Hamilton could have slotted in between Norris and Russell (with his nose in front of Norris at least) but tried to get two cars in one, realised there wasn't space and backed out of fourth place. But I accept that it is not clear cut.

Watching the race live yesterday, I didn't see why Hamilton had to give the place back to Norris and after watching the replay, I still don't see why Hamilton gave the place back to Norris. At 0:09, Hamilton is ahead of Norris.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Perez - It's more difficult to get rid of him now unless he can find another drive for 2024.

Russell - Really? He's been trounced by Hamilton this year. Over the course of a season you make your own luck, so that doesn't really come into it. Yesterday was a massive, massive mistake from him, and he clearly knew it.

I know you made the points comparison before, but they don't tell the whole story, even if they are ultimately, quite literally, what counts.

It looks to me like Russell has often been competitive with Hamilton this year, but very rarely has Pérez beaten or looked like beating Verstappen (we're assuming Verstappen and Hamilton are of similar talent here, perhaps, which some will probably wish to debate).

I think Russell has the better temperament. Pérez seems to feel righteous all the time and victimised (Marko's inane comments aside). I've seen the move on Albon and either it was a misjudgement (which can happen to all racers - we've all been there) or overly-aggressive driving.

In a parallel universe, I can imagine Pérez making that move on Pérez and the radio call would be something to hear! I am starting to agree that the time penalties are a nonsense. A 5-second penalty did nothing to him.

[Born Racer]

On another note, I noticed Red Bull focusing an exorbitant amount in their post-race comments on their bad luck with the safety car (I don't like the safety car's influence either), but their lack of pace was the real issue. How could they have won without SCs anyway?

[broadrun96]

No but that changes the reporting to oh well maybe if they could have gone longer and really cut in to the lead, instead of all weekend they were just off pace to not win. even though they could finish that way the rest of the season and win everything important

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Watching the race live yesterday, I didn't see why Hamilton had to give the place back to Norris and after watching the replay, I still don't see why Hamilton gave the place back to Norris. At 0:09, Hamilton is ahead of Norris.

But the point is that he did so by braking much later, too late to be able to slot in behind Russell, hence the need to skip the corner. Those who agree with giving the place up are looking at his move 'in the round' rather than separating the Norris pass from what then happened...

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Watching the race live yesterday, I didn't see why Hamilton had to give the place back to Norris and after watching the replay, I still don't see why Hamilton gave the place back to Norris. At 0:09, Hamilton is ahead of Norris.

I think (when looking at the screenshot below) that Hamilton was not significantly far enough ahead to be allowed to move over across in front of Norris. He is obliged to leave a car's width on the inside for Norris still at the point you mention.

Then, as the corner develops, he is not able to complete the move on Russell without leaving the track. So in effect, the Norris move was never completed, Hamilton left the track and so has to give back any 'lasting' advantage.

[broadrun96]

What, you mean you can't fit a car in there at all? Weird that, you know with those pesky laws of physics

[S griffin]

Hamilton going way too fast into that corner, but the problem is the run off is too forgiving. With grass he would have lost a position or two

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think (when looking at the screenshot below) that Hamilton was not significantly far enough ahead to be allowed to move over across in front of Norris. He is obliged to leave a car's width on the inside for Norris still at the point you mention.

Then, as the corner develops, he is not able to complete the move on Russell without leaving the track. So in effect, the Norris move was never completed, Hamilton left the track and so has to give back any 'lasting' advantage.

PlanetF1 has an interesting article on overtaking, in particular they mention, ''While there was a general sense of ‘the right way’ to overtake, there was little clarity on what is ‘the wrong way’, with the FIA, F1’s governing body – never making the rules of engagement particularly public.''

https://www.planetf1.com/features/f1...es-engagement/

They go on to explain overtaking on the inside of a corner and then overtaking on the outside of a corner, which is what Hamilton did.

PlanetF1 then quotes the FIA's guidelines. However, there is nothing in the guidelines that says about the overtaking car, Hamilton's car, being obliged to leave a car's width on the inside of the car being overtaken, Norris's car.

“In order for a car being overtaken to be required to give sufficient room to an overtaking car, the overtaking car needs to have a significant portion of the car alongside the car being overtaken and the overtaking manoeuvre must be done in a safe and controlled manner, while enabling the car to clearly remain within the limits of the track,”

Looking at that screen shot, a significant portion of Hamilton's car is along side Norris's car. I would say most of the car is ahead, the rear tyres look to be parallel to Norris's front wing.





The guidelines go on about the stewards exercising their discretion on considering what is a ‘significant portion’.

[S griffin]

Definitely seemed to be a bit of a squeeze by Hamilton on Norris. He does that quite a bit, but the problem is that he’s starting to get a bit unstuck by doing it

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

But the point is that he did so by braking much later, too late to be able to slot in behind Russell, hence the need to skip the corner. Those who agree with giving the place up are looking at his move 'in the round' rather than separating the Norris pass from what then happened...

So because of Hamilton braking much later, this meant he was unable to slot in behind Russell and therefore he should give the place back to Norris?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

https://www.planetf1.com/features/f1...es-engagement/

PlanetF1 then quotes the FIA's guidelines. However, there is nothing in the guidelines that says about the overtaking car, Hamilton's car, being obliged to leave a car's width on the inside of the car being overtaken, Norris's car.

Yeah - I saw that link too. I agree, that there is still some room for clarity here, particularly in regards to a multiple-car overtake.

I also saw an article on Formulapedia from Nov 22 - https://formulapedia.com/overtaking-...de-of-a-corner

In that article they describe the 'the attacking driver must carefully complete the offense without forcing the leading driver off track limits.'

In this situation, I see that Norris was the leading driver (at the start of the move) and Hamilton the attacking driver. If Hamilton had moved closer to the apex whilst Norris still had a wing alongside Hamilton's rear, then Hamilton would have been forcing the leading driver off.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Looking at that screen shot, a significant portion of Hamilton's car is along side Norris's car. I would say most of the car is ahead, the rear tyres look to be parallel to Norris's front wing.

It is, yes, but he has nowhere to go. There isn't any room between Russell and Norris for Hamilton to move into, unless Norris slams on the brakes to make room for him. That's the point - it's not the move on Norris that is the issue as such, it's that the pace at which he did it and how late he would have needed to brake that is the issue - to my mind. He expected a gap to be created but with everyone else on their brakes earlier, it wasn't going to be....

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

So because of Hamilton braking much later, this meant he was unable to slot in behind Russell and therefore he should give the place back to Norris?

In effect, yes. The move on the outside there was ambitious and he should have anticipated essentially having nowhere to go with the two drivers ahead hugging the inside line but needing to move to the right on the racing line. He was always going to run off the track once he committed himself to the overtake of Norris in that manner, unless both Norris and Russell moved further left out of his way, which was never going to happen. It's that debate we've had many times about 'being alongside' or having most of your car alongside. Is he entitled to demand the racing line for the rest of the corner when there is no space for him to slot into?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Watching the race live yesterday, I didn't see why Hamilton had to give the place back to Norris and after watching the replay, I still don't see why Hamilton gave the place back to Norris. At 0:09, Hamilton is ahead of Norris.

If you don't plan to (or find you can't) make the corner, you can pass lots of people. It really is as simple as that!

There is probably a multitude of example that can be found of various corners over the entire year in which... if you ignore the next corner, you can pass the leading driver who has slowed appropriately and/or positions their car to actually make the corner and not leave the circuit.

Allowing Lewis to keep that pass would have opened up a massive can of worms in the future. Just dive bomb whoever you are passing as you carry more speed into the corner. You can brake later and carry more speed than the leading car as you are not actually attempting to make the corner. Carry your speed as you bypass the corner off circuit and accelerate onto the next straight for the easy pass.

Do I think Lewis did this on purpose? No. I think he got a good run up the outside while everyone else was on the racing line. He found he was side by side with both Lando and George with nowhere to go and VERY quickly aborted the entire thing, but kept his speed up. If the gap had existed it would have been brilliant. But a pass on Lando (not to mention George!) wasn't earned fairly.

I think the real problem here is that while they did have an place for drivers to rejoin the circuit, it clearly was faster to miss the corner and rejoin than to stay on the circuit. Especially if you carried speed off the circuit. If the path to rejoin slowed you more this would be self correcting.

Richard

(Edit: Ugh, many of the same points made by others while I was typing this up! )

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I think Russell has the better temperament. Pérez seems to feel righteous all the time and victimised (Marko's inane comments aside). I've seen the move on Albon and either it was a misjudgement (which can happen to all racers - we've all been there) or overly-aggressive driving.

Perez does seem to be chief whinger amongst a whole gridful of wingers at the moment. And really Markogate was blown out of all proportion. If Marko had ascribed the same characteristic to (say) George Russell "because he is English", would there have been the same fuss?

Originally Posted by Born Racer

On another note, I noticed Red Bull focusing an exorbitant amount in their post-race comments on their bad luck with the safety car (I don't like the safety car's influence either), but their lack of pace was the real issue. How could they have won without SCs anyway?

Agreed, yet the Red Bull strategy appeared to be predicated on a safety car turning up at the right time for them. If it had, I'd be pretty sure that Horner would tell us that was skill, brilliance and good strategy and nothing to do with luck.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

If you don't plan to (or find you can't) make the corner, you can pass lots of people. It really is as simple as that!

There is probably a multitude of example that can be found of various corners over the entire year in which... if you ignore the next corner, you can pass the leading driver who has slowed appropriately and/or positions their car to actually make the corner and not leave the circuit.

Allowing Lewis to keep that pass would have opened up a massive can of worms in the future. Just dive bomb whoever you are passing as you carry more speed into the corner. You can brake later and carry more speed than the leading car as you are not actually attempting to make the corner. Carry your speed as you bypass the corner off circuit and accelerate onto the next straight for the easy pass.

Do I think Lewis did this on purpose? No. I think he got a good run up the outside while everyone else was on the racing line. He found he was side by side with both Lando and George with nowhere to go and VERY quickly aborted the entire thing, but kept his speed up. If the gap had existed it would have been brilliant. But a pass on Lando (not to mention George!) wasn't earned fairly.

I think the real problem here is that while they did have an place for drivers to rejoin the circuit, it clearly was faster to miss the corner and rejoin than to stay on the circuit. Especially if you carried speed off the circuit. If the path to rejoin slowed you more this would be self correcting.

Richard

(Edit: Ugh, many of the same points made by others while I was typing this up! )

Indeed, If you don't plan to (or find you can't) make the corner, you can pass lots of people. However I don't think that was Hamilton's intention, you yourself asked whether he did it on purpose and said no. I also don't think the pass was earned unfairly either, instead Hamilton was being over ambitious.

I've watched the start again, this includes the aerial shot of the grid and Martin Brundle says he thought Hamilton was under control but had nowhere to go, as Russell had claimed the apex.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

And really Markogate was blown out of all proportion. If Marko had ascribed the same characteristic to (say) George Russell "because he is English", would there have been the same fuss?

Maybe there would, maybe there wouldn't. I can't imagine it going down that well in many places (particularly England ). However, I think the fuss as you refer to it stems from Mexico's history as a country that has faced slurs and been colonised rather than coloniser - the image of 'lazy Mexicans' has perpetuated, for instance. Whereas English people get criticised for their food - perhaps not as harmful a label.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Indeed, If you don't plan to (or find you can't) make the corner, you can pass lots of people. However I don't think that was Hamilton's intention, you yourself asked whether he did it on purpose and said no. I also don't think the pass was earned unfairly either, instead Hamilton was being over ambitious.

I've watched the start again, this includes the aerial shot of the grid and Martin Brundle says he thought Hamilton was under control but had nowhere to go, as Russell had claimed the apex.

I think Hamilton was trying too hard in his bid to get ahead of Norris and as a result ran out of road. Again if the runoff wasn’t so forgiving, would have been more circumspect? Probably.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I think Russell has the better temperament. Pérez seems to feel righteous all the time and victimised

Maybe it’s his ‘South American’ persona?

Joking aside, I’d see it as the exact opposite to you.

[Born Racer]

My timing was unfortunate, as I had Helmut Marko's comments come to mind as I wrote it, but of course, do not suggest that is really the reason.

Any examples of Russell's temperament being inferior in this regard?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Any examples of Russell's temperament being inferior in this regard?

Apart from chucking it off yesterday?

[Born Racer]

Apart from that, yes. I was thinking more in terms of attitude to situations. I think Russell just made a mistake, really.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

So because of Hamilton braking much later, this meant he was unable to slot in behind Russell and therefore he should give the place back to Norris?

As he wasn't trying to make the corner it will be a lot easier to brake later knowing he could use the runoff route to make up a place or two. Then all he had to do was claim he was squeezed. The tactic was pretty transparent which is why he had to give the places back otherwise he would have copped a penalty for sure.