[Official] Mexican Grand Prix 2016: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[fieldodreams79]

Hamilton lost his advantage gained through his mistake on the first lap while the entire field lost whatever advantage they gained simultaneously. Therefore, he was non worse for wear.

The same penalty for the same infraction later in the race at the start or restart would've meant a loss of several positions. Nothing was done or even investigated, if I am not mistaken.

Both were identical but only one was a complete foul in the eyes of series to where a podium position was negated while nobody bated an eye at the other.

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by bella

exactly my point. who's bringing the sport into disrepute, the person deciding to broadcast it, or the person saying it when it's accepted that anything making it to the main broadcast is heavily censored.

Presumably the FIA get all the car-to-pit feeds, so the disrespect (to put it mildly) to Charlie Whiting would have been known whether broadcast or not?

Of course Vettel's penalty wasn't (overtly) for his foul-mouthed outburst, but for breaching the rule clarification which he had himself demanded....hoist by his own petard......

I think it just shows up that he becomes so wound-up when frustrated that his behavious becomes irrational - not what you need when in command of a 300Kph+ projectile.

[Kempi]

Both penalties at the end were fully alright. Seb was red-misted enough that he went afoul of the rule that he had quite a part in implementing because of Max prior behavior.

Lewis should have gotten one too and probably would have, had not Maxalmost taken out Nico in the very same corner (I do not think the VSC was really relevant after that) . Good thing that did not happen, even though it might have put Max in place because he surely would have gotten a severe penalty for that.

What struck me most was Marko's and Verstappen's arrogance in post-race interviews with German Sky. That really was something and with Marko fully backing Verstappen on public TV, it is quite clear what will not change until something serious happens - Max's stunts.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

Presumably the FIA get all the car-to-pit feeds, so the disrespect (to put it mildly) to Charlie Whiting would have been known whether broadcast or not?

Of course Vettel's penalty wasn't (overtly) for his foul-mouthed outburst, but for breaching the rule clarification which he had himself demanded....hoist by his own petard......

I think it just shows up that he becomes so wound-up when frustrated that his behavious becomes irrational - not what you need when in command of a 300Kph+ projectile.

yeah, they do hear everything - there's also feeds to someone and available (there used to be f1 radio twitter feeds) for everything to be broadcast.

it's like anything else in the "bringing the sport into disrepute" type area. the comment itself isn't usually that much of an issue if it stays within the sport, it's the fact that it finds its way into the public arena that's the problem.

we all understand that when you're racing emotions are all over the place, particularly with wheel to wheel shenanigans. no matter what, you feel you've been wronged, especially in a single seater because it's that much more vulnerable.

but the general public who might not know motorsport that well heard a world champion say he wanted the race director to go and do something to himself.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Hamilton lost his advantage gained through his mistake on the first lap while the entire field lost whatever advantage they gained simultaneously. Therefore, he was non worse for wear.

I think this point has been made earlier in this thread, but there were two advantages for Hamilton's first corner action...

1. Prevents any pass attempts by those from behind
2. Creates a gap upon exit between him and whoever is behind

The safety car removed #2, but #1 remained. I will say that #1 is pretty much the goal in these scenarios and is MUCH more important than #2.

Richard

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think this point has been made earlier in this thread, but there were two advantages for Hamilton's first corner action...

1. Prevents any pass attempts by those from behind
2. Creates a gap upon exit between him and whoever is behind

The safety car removed #2, but #1 remained. I will say that #1 is pretty much the goal in these scenarios and is MUCH more important than #2.

Richard

Very good breakdown on the advantages. Just seemed like I kept seeing the point being made the SC penalized Hammy. Completely beside the point, imho.

[spider]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think this point has been made earlier in this thread, but there were two advantages for Hamilton's first corner action...

1. Prevents any pass attempts by those from behind
2. Creates a gap upon exit between him and whoever is behind

The safety car removed #2, but #1 remained. I will say that #1 is pretty much the goal in these scenarios and is MUCH more important than #2.

Richard

I go along with that.

In any type of racing you'd be annoyed with the lead driver cocking up their braking at the first corner, cutting out the 2nd corner and joining at the third corner.

It should have been penalised, for the reason you mentioned.

[chillibowl]

should have been but where is the incentive to penalize LH when they have so much money to make by prolonging the title battle a few more races?

Originally Posted by bella

...but the general public who might not know motorsport that well heard a world champion say he wanted the race director to go and do something to himself.

well it was bleeped so the children were saved.

the general public may not know much about motor sports but surely they know a little something about sports in general...players get mad at referees ..a pretty common occurrence at any sporting event imo.



not related to the SV rant, but to my above point about the championship...i would even go so far as to say the general public is smart enough to realize when a sporting event is being manipulated through an unequal application of basic rules...like out of bounds is supposed to mean out of bounds.

its a pretty standard thing to grasp in every sport imo.

its things like this that cause the general public to tune out because it defies explaination imo.

[fieldodreams79]

I like to show motor races the my 6 and 10 year boys. F-bombs over a radio can be a deterrent from myself and other parents attempting to bring young people to the sport. They're dropped everywhere in sports and can be heard by a few at stadiums, not necessarily masses around the world when it's so easily avoidable.

That kinda behavior makes me ****ing sick. :ruanway:

[alfettafan]

Originally Posted by Mystery

HAM missing turn 1 at the start made him vulnerable to a penalty, but the full safety car meant that the Race Director was able to use his discretion (as given to him by the Sporting Regulations) to consider that the advantage taken had been given up, therefore whether you agree or not, the rules allow for this sort of advantage to be forgiven.

Had Verstappen allowed Vettel to pass then he too would almost certainly not have been penalised, as the advantage would have been given back.

Not really sure I can see the similarity in the Bathurst incident, because an in-pit infringement is completely different to a driving one.

Nico Hulkenberg, amongst others, doesn't appear to agree...

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hu...turn-1-845390/

Re my Bathurst example, the point is not whether the incident took place on track or in the pits but that the penalty is given "in race" and not in a safety car period...

[Mystery]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Very good breakdown on the advantages. Just seemed like I kept seeing the point being made the SC penalized Hammy. Completely beside the point, imho.

Completely disagree. There was no direct challenge to Hamilton at Turn 1 because Nico was having to avoid being driven into. They won't punish for a wrongful defence against nobody.

[spider]

...if there'd been a gravel trap or wall there - negating the ability to go from T1 to T3, he'd have ploughed through / into that.

Verstappen does have a point tbf - what was different between him and Lewis? Lewis had 21 cars within 5 seconds of him - whilst Max had two.

Both were driver errors under pressure - cutting out the same corners when defending position, so if one's punished then another should be too.

Thing is, even if Lewis had been told to give up a place or two he'd have come through to win, I have no doubt at all. But, rules should be dealt with evenly.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mystery

Completely disagree. There was no direct challenge to Hamilton at Turn 1 because Nico was having to avoid being driven into. They won't punish for a wrongful defence against nobody.

Well the advantage of braking so late that you can't make the corner is that... it ensures there is no direct challenge when it comes to the corner! That is the whole point. You should get there before anyone else!

And if you believe that the braking was late on purpose in an effort prevent overtaking (and frankly I don't have a strong opinion if it was a purposeful action or heat of the moment screw up), then that was an action taken by Lewis and what was going on around him (someone in position to pass him or not) is generally irrelevant. He wouldn't have thought (oh, nobody is close enough to pass I don't need to defend). Its the freaking first turn of lap one. Of course he expects someone is going to be close! Who was wronged? Pretty much whoever was directly behind him.

In reality my comments about this is not to justify any type of punishment via the stewards, but rather as part of my earlier comment about that I agree there should be a requirement in certain corners for how to reenter the track. So that in this case, if that had been in place, Lewis would have had a reentry path that would have been quite slow by design and he likely would have lost a position or two by the time he was on track and up to speed. All of which without any involvement of the stewards! And it would have been the outcome regardless of it was a malicious and calculated act, he just screwed up, or a mechanical issue. A gravel trap would have done the same, but it would have likely resulted in a retirement vs. his ability to continue and entertain the fans.

Richard

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

I like to show motor races the my 6 and 10 year boys. F-bombs over a radio can be a deterrent from myself and other parents attempting to bring young people to the sport. They're dropped everywhere in sports and can be heard by a few at stadiums, not necessarily masses around the world when it's so easily avoidable.

That kinda behavior makes me ****ing sick. :ruanway:

Dodging our auto censor is *not* allowed (Moderator)

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Dodging our auto censer is *not* allowed (Moderator)

You mean censor, , unless the spell checker along with the auto censer, sorry censor, has also failed.

[JeremySmith]

That's what I meant, and I don't want people trying to dodge it period ..😉

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Dodging our auto censer is *not* allowed (Moderator)

I didn't dodge, sir. Merely used the "*" key. Surely you give me more credit than that!

Originally Posted by Mystery

Completely disagree. There was no direct challenge to Hamilton at Turn 1 because Nico was having to avoid being driven into. They won't punish for a wrongful defence against nobody.

Nico and Max on lap 1 have absolutely nothing to do with Lewis' actions on lap 1 when compared to Max's later in the race. They are separate issues so no use in subtly mentioning that as part of this specific issue. If we are going to discuss separate issues, let's start comparing other tracks and blowing T1 / lap 1 and how that generally works out, where sometimes you must come to a complete stop before carrying on. But that doesn't reallly matter.

The stewards gave a penalty to Max for "track limits". I fail to see the difference in what Lewis did on lap 1, with not even an investigation.

[wnut]

Nobody was alongside Hamilton, because he just did not really bother braking for the corner after the brief lockup, just kept his foot on it and re-joined the circuit straight lining corner 3, in essence he just straight lined corner 1,2 and 3.

Not like Hamilton doesn't have form cutting corners here is his work at the 2016 Russian GP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd-UApUkJwg

Several places gained from tenth on the grid.

In all the competitions I have been in, you cut the circuit, you lose the lap!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

I didn't dodge, sir. Merely used the "*" key. Surely you give me more credit than that!


Nico and Max on lap 1 have absolutely nothing to do with Lewis' actions on lap 1 when compared to Max's later in the race. They are separate issues so no use in subtly mentioning that as part of this specific issue. If we are going to discuss separate issues, let's start comparing other tracks and blowing T1 / lap 1 and how that generally works out, where sometimes you must come to a complete stop before carrying on. But that doesn't reallly matter.

The stewards gave a penalty to Max for "track limits". I fail to see the difference in what Lewis did on lap 1, with not even an investigation.

Ricciardo doesn't see why Hamilton was not penalized either:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-NZrlqw-k

[wolfhound]

It seems that the FIA may be investigating Vettel's verbal outburst against race officals in the latter stages of the Mexican GP.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fi...tburst-845676/

About time. I cannot imagine it taking this long in Balestre's time

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

In reality my comments about this is not to justify any type of punishment via the stewards, but rather as part of my earlier comment about that I agree there should be a requirement in certain corners for how to reenter the track. So that in this case, if that had been in place, Lewis would have had a reentry path that would have been quite slow by design and he likely would have lost a position or two by the time he was on track and up to speed. All of which without any involvement of the stewards! And it would have been the outcome regardless of it was a malicious and calculated act, he just screwed up, or a mechanical issue. A gravel trap would have done the same, but it would have likely resulted in a retirement vs. his ability to continue and entertain the fans.

Richard

That's why it should be a small trap placed relatively close to T3. That way you have plenty of time and space to use the gras field in front to avoid the gravel so cars don't get stuck and can continue the race, but you WILL loose time passing it left or right.

The problem now is that you can turn the car sufficiently to point it towards T3 on the tarmac on and next to the track of T1 and then you only have to go straight on the grass, not only traveling a shorter distance but even having a higher T3 exit speed as well.

A small gravel trap as per above will fix it.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

That's why it should be a small trap placed relatively close to T3. That way you have plenty of time and space to use the gras field in front to avoid the gravel so cars don't get stuck and can continue the race, but you WILL loose time passing it left or right.

I don't know where this tenet that drivers should be able to finish the race after they have fallen off came from.

To my mind the racing would be far more interesting and exciting if errors were punished by being beached in the gravel trap. The races would once more be a test of skill, and less talented drivers could not succeed in better machinery having visited the scenery a dozen times in a season and still scored bucket loads of points in the races where they messed up.

In the old days they would have been dead, not just inconveniently out of the race for the afternoon.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

I don't know where this tenet that drivers should be able to finish the race after they have fallen off came from.

To my mind the racing would be far more interesting and exciting if errors were punished by being beached in the gravel trap. The races would once more be a test of skill, and less talented drivers could not succeed in better machinery having visited the scenery a dozen times in a season and still scored bucket loads of points in the races where they messed up.

In the old days they would have been dead, not just inconveniently out of the race for the afternoon.

Absolutely! More races with drivers beached in gravel and extended safety car periods while they extract them. Maybe even red flag the race because drivers can't reduce speed and run the risk of hitting marshals or extraction equipment. It allows me to stop watching and get something to eat, post on this forum about how screwed up F1 is or maybe an extended bathroom break with a good book.

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by wnut

I don't know where this tenet that drivers should be able to finish the race after they have fallen off came from.

To my mind the racing would be far more interesting and exciting if errors were punished by being beached in the gravel trap. The races would once more be a test of skill, and less talented drivers could not succeed in better machinery having visited the scenery a dozen times in a season and still scored bucket loads of points in the races where they messed up.

In the old days they would have been dead, not just inconveniently out of the race for the afternoon.

Personally I don't really have a stronger preference for either argument. I think the keep them in the race as well as the up the stakes argument has merrit. The current line of thinking by deciscion makers is keep them in the race and for that a smaller gravel trap would do the trick.

Either a small avoidable gravel trap or a large unavoidable one would be better than the current "fastest lawn mower of the year" arena.

[steve_r]

Since when was the purpose of a gravel trap to penalise cars that run off the track?

They are/were there for safety reasons to stop cars ploughing into barriers.

This idea that gravel traps are to be purposefully manufactured and installed to penalise a car that has left the track is a new one on me - and a bizarre "solution" to that problem.

Better and more consistanr stewarding surely is the answer. And while we are on the subject, why is there a different driver steward at nearly every race? No wonder there are inconsistencies.