The Official 2017 Bahrain Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**
Discussion
glazbagun said:
ZX10R NIN said:
TonyToniTone said:
F1 drivers have been told that anyone copying Sebastian Vettel’s strategy of starting outside his grid box in China is likely to get a penalty, after the German himself escaped without sanction.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-drivers-warn...
That's because there wasn't a specific rule for what (as a large part of the car was WITHIN the Grid Slot) he'd done so he couldn't be punished, basically Seb got smart because the rule didn't say IN the pit box, but they've closed that loophole now.https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-drivers-warn...
Edited by ZX10R NIN on Monday 17th April 09:52
Reminds me of Schumi serving his penalty in the pitlane at Silverstone after he crossed the finish line!
Vaud said:
jm doc said:
Vettel broke the rules. FIA reg 36.9 "When the cars come back to the grid at the end of the formation lap
(or laps, see Article 39.16), they will stop within their respective grid positions, keeping their engines running." He was well outside his grid position as marked out on the track and as everyone could clearly see.
This was also confirmed by the stewards when they announced no further action as no advantage was gained, not that there was no infringement.
Unlike Lewis's technical infringement today where there clearly was no gain by him nor loss by anyone, Vettel may actually have got an advantage on the cars behind by having better traction. And indeed, why else did he take up that position.
So, Vettel broke the rules and may have gained an advantage by doing so and wasn't punished, Lewis broke a rule, got no advantage but was punished.
It was claimed at the start of the season that apparently the FIA were going to try and stop races being decided by penalties and so when Vettel was allowed to get away with a false start I think many people felt that it was reasonable if this was indeed the new spirit in the sport in action. How sad to see that it would appear to be nothing more than another crude example of the bias that continues to permeate and pollute F1, and denied all of us the opportunity to see a dramatic race at the front.
The race driver steward said the rule was ambiguous for lateral positioning, they had discussed it and it would be clarified going forwards.(or laps, see Article 39.16), they will stop within their respective grid positions, keeping their engines running." He was well outside his grid position as marked out on the track and as everyone could clearly see.
This was also confirmed by the stewards when they announced no further action as no advantage was gained, not that there was no infringement.
Unlike Lewis's technical infringement today where there clearly was no gain by him nor loss by anyone, Vettel may actually have got an advantage on the cars behind by having better traction. And indeed, why else did he take up that position.
So, Vettel broke the rules and may have gained an advantage by doing so and wasn't punished, Lewis broke a rule, got no advantage but was punished.
It was claimed at the start of the season that apparently the FIA were going to try and stop races being decided by penalties and so when Vettel was allowed to get away with a false start I think many people felt that it was reasonable if this was indeed the new spirit in the sport in action. How sad to see that it would appear to be nothing more than another crude example of the bias that continues to permeate and pollute F1, and denied all of us the opportunity to see a dramatic race at the front.
Perhaps you could direct your missive in his direction?
I can understand differences of opinion from stewards in matters such as contact in corners, but when you try and claim a rule doesn't mean what's written then you really have got a problem.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there). The stewards let him off.
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
Still waiting for an explanation, or even a discussion, or even a mention? by any of the "experts in the media" or indeed anyone else.
jm doc said:
The rule is unambiguous (quoted in my previous post). Since when does "within their grid positions" mean "a bit out"?
I can understand differences of opinion from stewards in matters such as contact in corners, but when you try and claim a rule doesn't mean what's written then you really have got a problem.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there). The stewards let him off.
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
Still waiting for an explanation, or even a discussion, or even a mention? by any of the "experts in the media" or indeed anyone else.
Mika Salo (driver steward for China) was interviewed on the BBC Chequered Flag podcast about 11 mins in to their programme. IIRC he was clear that the rules were ambiguous.I can understand differences of opinion from stewards in matters such as contact in corners, but when you try and claim a rule doesn't mean what's written then you really have got a problem.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there). The stewards let him off.
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
Still waiting for an explanation, or even a discussion, or even a mention? by any of the "experts in the media" or indeed anyone else.
jm doc said:
The rule is unambiguous (quoted in my previous post). Since when does "within their grid positions" mean "a bit out"?
I can understand differences of opinion from stewards in matters such as contact in corners, but when you try and claim a rule doesn't mean what's written then you really have got a problem.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there). The stewards let him off.
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
Still waiting for an explanation, or even a discussion, or even a mention? by any of the "experts in the media" or indeed anyone else.
Have you maybe considered that it's you who is wrong in your view, since it seems like no one else shares it?I can understand differences of opinion from stewards in matters such as contact in corners, but when you try and claim a rule doesn't mean what's written then you really have got a problem.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there). The stewards let him off.
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
Still waiting for an explanation, or even a discussion, or even a mention? by any of the "experts in the media" or indeed anyone else.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Watching Ted and his note book... Talking about Alonso retiring on purpose; something to the effect that Alonso threatened to retire the car if not in the points by race end (but would drive the wheels off it in the mean time).
Sounds over the top to me....But this is F1.
I jokingly said Alonso gave up in Oz with his "suspension issue" and yesterday was the second time he seemed to quit after being passed..Sounds over the top to me....But this is F1.
PurpleMoonlight said:
jm doc said:
So, Vettel broke the rules and may have gained an advantage by doing so and wasn't punished, Lewis broke a rule, got no advantage but was punished.
There is a difference though.If Hamilton had not impeded another driver by his actions it would have gone unpunished. The fact that Hamilton's actions did not have the desired effect is immaterial, it's the intention that matters. And it was a tad dangerous too.
You can't have it both ways no matter how hard you try and wriggle.
vonuber said:
If bottas doesn't up his game you'd expect merc to lose the constructors- kimi is more likely to pull his finger out.
He's finished in the top three in all three races so far?! 
I really don't get the Bottas hate on here sometimes; he's in the same kind of position as Kimi/Daniel R and no-one b
hes about them as much. Pretty sure he's doing as good a job as the team expected.parabolica said:
vonuber said:
If bottas doesn't up his game you'd expect merc to lose the constructors- kimi is more likely to pull his finger out.
He's finished in the top three in all three races so far?! I really don't get the Bottas hate on here sometimes; he's in the same kind of position as Kimi/Daniel R and no-one bhes about them as much. Pretty sure he's doing as good a job as the team expected.I've been disappointed by Bottas but I don't think he's doing a bad job. I just think he's burning his chance of ever being a joint #1.
Hamilton overtaking him and then smashing down the laptimes was more about cementing his place as #1 than even catching Vettel IMO.
It looks like the Merc total dominance is a thing of the past, so while Lewis vs Nico was the only entertainment we had before, Mercedes will soon need to start thinking about favouring one driver, especially if Kimi gets it together like he did last year.
Bottas needs to bring the race to Lewis pretty soon IMO. The pole was very good, and it made a good race to have him holding everyone up, but he's going to be a journeyman forever if Merc start using him as a dedicated #2.
Hamilton overtaking him and then smashing down the laptimes was more about cementing his place as #1 than even catching Vettel IMO.
It looks like the Merc total dominance is a thing of the past, so while Lewis vs Nico was the only entertainment we had before, Mercedes will soon need to start thinking about favouring one driver, especially if Kimi gets it together like he did last year.
Bottas needs to bring the race to Lewis pretty soon IMO. The pole was very good, and it made a good race to have him holding everyone up, but he's going to be a journeyman forever if Merc start using him as a dedicated #2.
jm doc said:
The rule is unambiguous (quoted in my previous post). Since when does "within their grid positions" mean "a bit out"?
I can understand differences of opinion from stewards in matters such as contact in corners, but when you try and claim a rule doesn't mean what's written then you really have got a problem.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there). The stewards let him off.
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
Still waiting for an explanation, or even a discussion, or even a mention? by any of the "experts in the media" or indeed anyone else.
You are making several assumptions within the two statements you claim are the facts. Facts are unambiguous, your statements are not. The first "fact":I can understand differences of opinion from stewards in matters such as contact in corners, but when you try and claim a rule doesn't mean what's written then you really have got a problem.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there). The stewards let him off.
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
Still waiting for an explanation, or even a discussion, or even a mention? by any of the "experts in the media" or indeed anyone else.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there).
The bolded words are assumptions, which have not been demonstrated to be true, and indeed the stewards found them to be not true because the rule is ambiguous. The rule says "within the grid positions" which is ambiguous wording. A more specific wording that would have allowed the stewards to apply a penalty would be something like "within the white lines of their respective grid positions..." .
ETA: If you can show where in the regulations a "grid position" is defined as the white lines approximating a box, then he probably infringed up on it. Even then, if two wheels are out and two in, you get in to the same debate as how you define track limits...is track limits defined as all wheels in or is two wheels out is defined as being outside of track limits?
It is also arguable that Vettel gained an advantage by his actions. How did he gain? He was barely able to keep his position in the run to T1, while Kimi behind him lost one position to Ricciardo (who started alongside). It is arguable that Vettel had a significantly better start than Kimi, given the variability produced by the start rules. Neither of these establish sufficient grounds to warrant a penalty.
Second "fact":
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
The stewards establish the facts of this matter in their report (thankfully their 'facts' are a lot more concrete than yours...), and they do not mention gaining or losing an advantage as grounds for the penalty. It can be established that Hamilton did not gain an advantage, but the point is moot given he wasn't penalised for that.
So, I fail to see the inconsistency you are claiming here.
A final ETA: I note that there's no stewards report on Vettel in China, I assumed there'd be one...so the stewards didn't think there was an investigation to be made there?
Edited by Dr Z on Monday 17th April 16:23
glazbagun said:
I've been disappointed by Bottas but I don't think he's doing a bad job. I just think he's burning his chance of ever being a joint #1.
Hamilton overtaking him and then smashing down the laptimes was more about cementing his place as #1 than even catching Vettel IMO.
It looks like the Merc total dominance is a thing of the past, so while Lewis vs Nico was the only entertainment we had before, Mercedes will soon need to start thinking about favouring one driver, especially if Kimi gets it together like he did last year.
Bottas needs to bring the race to Lewis pretty soon IMO. The pole was very good, and it made a good race to have him holding everyone up, but he's going to be a journeyman forever if Merc start using him as a dedicated #2.
As you have mentioned his pole was very good.Hamilton overtaking him and then smashing down the laptimes was more about cementing his place as #1 than even catching Vettel IMO.
It looks like the Merc total dominance is a thing of the past, so while Lewis vs Nico was the only entertainment we had before, Mercedes will soon need to start thinking about favouring one driver, especially if Kimi gets it together like he did last year.
Bottas needs to bring the race to Lewis pretty soon IMO. The pole was very good, and it made a good race to have him holding everyone up, but he's going to be a journeyman forever if Merc start using him as a dedicated #2.
I just hope for his sake the issues he had during the race yesterday was the reason he was so far off the pace.
Surely being so close in qualifying means he did have an issue.
Ricciardo did state that he felt he could have had a chance at the win while watching the cars in front struggling for grip.
He also stated that it was clear Bottas had issues with the car.
Clearly this was the reason he was close
ELUSIVEJIM said:
All I can say is thank God Ferrari are in the mix this year.
If the Mercedes had the same advantage as last year it would be a one way fight for the Championship
Lewis v Lewis
And also thank god for Nico these past three years for being so fast. Bottas seemed stand out in 2014 but Nico had two seasons of tooth-and-nail battling and the 2014 Bahrain gp is still a favourite. I hope Bottas can really pull it out of the bag and at least hastle the WDC'sIf the Mercedes had the same advantage as last year it would be a one way fight for the Championship
Lewis v Lewis
ELUSIVEJIM said:
glazbagun said:
I've been disappointed by Bottas but I don't think he's doing a bad job. I just think he's burning his chance of ever being a joint #1.
Hamilton overtaking him and then smashing down the laptimes was more about cementing his place as #1 than even catching Vettel IMO.
It looks like the Merc total dominance is a thing of the past, so while Lewis vs Nico was the only entertainment we had before, Mercedes will soon need to start thinking about favouring one driver, especially if Kimi gets it together like he did last year.
Bottas needs to bring the race to Lewis pretty soon IMO. The pole was very good, and it made a good race to have him holding everyone up, but he's going to be a journeyman forever if Merc start using him as a dedicated #2.
As you have mentioned his pole was very good.Hamilton overtaking him and then smashing down the laptimes was more about cementing his place as #1 than even catching Vettel IMO.
It looks like the Merc total dominance is a thing of the past, so while Lewis vs Nico was the only entertainment we had before, Mercedes will soon need to start thinking about favouring one driver, especially if Kimi gets it together like he did last year.
Bottas needs to bring the race to Lewis pretty soon IMO. The pole was very good, and it made a good race to have him holding everyone up, but he's going to be a journeyman forever if Merc start using him as a dedicated #2.
I just hope for his sake the issues he had during the race yesterday was the reason he was so far off the pace.
Surely being so close in qualifying means he did have an issue.
Ricciardo did state that he felt he could have had a chance at the win while watching the cars in front struggling for grip.
He also stated that it was clear Bottas had issues with the car.
Clearly this was the reason he was close
It looks like a fascinating season is possible.
Vettel has two wins. That's put Merc into a situation where they might have to make a decision as to team orders sooner than they might have wanted to. Ferrari are at least on par with Merc.
Ferrari have so such pressure. They have a clear #1.
Ferrari brought an update to the car for Bahrain and that means that Merc will feel the need to do something for a fortnight's time.
Then there's RB. They have a poor engine but the chassis seems a good one. The fight between their two drivers - which we were cruelly robbed of yesterday - might develop. Their driving characteristics differ, a sort of tortoise and hare situation.
This looks like fun.
Vettel has two wins. That's put Merc into a situation where they might have to make a decision as to team orders sooner than they might have wanted to. Ferrari are at least on par with Merc.
Ferrari have so such pressure. They have a clear #1.
Ferrari brought an update to the car for Bahrain and that means that Merc will feel the need to do something for a fortnight's time.
Then there's RB. They have a poor engine but the chassis seems a good one. The fight between their two drivers - which we were cruelly robbed of yesterday - might develop. Their driving characteristics differ, a sort of tortoise and hare situation.
This looks like fun.
i really enjoyed the race. It was a bit frustrating to see lewis give the penalty away. As has been said, he didn't gain an advantage, but its clear what he did, so caught bang to rights, he didn't seems to have an argument with the decision.
but a picture is starting to form of a clear two driver and two team fight for both championships. merc are going to need Bottas to keep delivering as are Ferrari going to need Raikonen to step up. I'm hopeful that Redbull are going to get closer and get right in the mix.
I also think both Vettel and Hamilton are relishing the challenge each other brings. It could drive them to produce some fantastic drives this year.
but a picture is starting to form of a clear two driver and two team fight for both championships. merc are going to need Bottas to keep delivering as are Ferrari going to need Raikonen to step up. I'm hopeful that Redbull are going to get closer and get right in the mix.
I also think both Vettel and Hamilton are relishing the challenge each other brings. It could drive them to produce some fantastic drives this year.
Edited by RGambo on Monday 17th April 14:30
The way I saw Hamilton's move was to give the RB the same delay he was about to suffer due to having to stack. If Hamilton had come in normally he would have had to wait a few seconds directly behind Bottas but the RB could have continued and presented normally.
To me it looked like an advantage was gained, or at least planned to be gained.
To me it looked like an advantage was gained, or at least planned to be gained.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff