The Official Japanese GP 2019 **Spoilers**

[noell35]

I know they are not renowned for journalistic integrity but this has to be one of the most innacurate articles ever written:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/motorsport/10138323...

I don't normally read the Sun, just clicked the link from Google news

[HustleRussell]

angrymoby said:

The Surveyor said:

He was certainly due a penalty for hitting Max, no question about that.

he was 100% fault for hitting Max, but a penalty i'm not so sure (& the stewards weren't sure either) drivers don't really (they have a rough idea) know how much grip they have on the 1st lap until they get to the first corner ...& it's not like Max didn't have any room- he had half a track

Leclerc was certainly due a penalty for his ignoring of a race control instruction- he should have been warned, then black flagged- pretty simple, instead they let him race so as to not 'ruin' the spectacle & afaiaa hit him with biggest time penalty they could (10s) ...the extra 5s seemed to be tacked on (how many first lap incidents have been left to be dealt till after the race?)

I'm not sure when this 'don't ruin spectacle attitude crept in, but it's a fine line when it takes precedence over a: the rule book & b: safety

F1 isn't & shouldn't be WWE imho

My opinion is pretty much the direct opposite of angrymoby's!

I think that Leclerc's contact with Verstappen was simple, bloody-minded refusal to be overtaken. He went into turn 2 too quick and made relatively heavy contact with Verstappen. Verstappen was clearly ahead at turn-in to turn 2 and gave Charles adequate space to negotiate the corner. Looking at the incident in isolation I might prefer that no penalty was applied under the well-known 'first couple of corners' leniency. With the wider view that the incident knocked Verstappen out of 3rd place and into retirement while Charles was able to continue, I can see why not penalizing Leclerc here might raise eyebrows- however I am still not sure what I think about the 'outcome-based' dishing out of penalties, which seems a bit artificial.

The second offense of continuing to drive with a car in a dangerous condition- do we know for sure that the stewards were insisting that Charles come in immediately? Nothing came up on the broadcast and there appeared to be no flag signals. Was it not just Ferrari asking Charles to come in? If so I think Charles' decision to stay out showed good initiative. A more 'colour by numbers' driver like a Lance Stroll for example would've obeyed and come straight in. I like to see this differentiation between the proactive, challenging future WDC mentality and the narrower bandwidth journeyman mentality. I would've liked to have seen how the race would've played out if Charles had stayed out. Maybe he could've had a decent battle with Albon for 4th. Much has been made about the end plate flying off, and sure it looked very dramatic and took Hamilton's rear view mirror off, but in my opinion carbon debris is simply an occupational hazard which is unfortunately implicit to modern F1 and can compromise anybody's race at any time. OK sure if one of the front wing pylons was broken and main planes are threatening to break off, insist that the driver comes in immediately, but an end fence- what, 100g or less? I don't believe it's likely to injure someone. Get a marshal out there to pick it up when possible.

IMO the rules looked as inconsistent than ever when you compare and contrast the above with the fact that Vettel clearly and visibly jumped the start in a similar way to Raikkonen at Sochi and somehow attracted no penalty? I realise it all has to do with the mechanism by which the offence is detected but to detect that one, only a pair of eyes was necessary.

[Deesee]

With regards to the jump start watch this


https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/dhqevb/...

Talk of multi camera views and everything else, this is from someone’s phone.

[The Surveyor]

HustleRussell said:

angrymoby said:

The Surveyor said:

He was certainly due a penalty for hitting Max, no question about that.

he was 100% fault for hitting Max, but a penalty i'm not so sure (& the stewards weren't sure either) drivers don't really (they have a rough idea) know how much grip they have on the 1st lap until they get to the first corner ...& it's not like Max didn't have any room- he had half a track

Leclerc was certainly due a penalty for his ignoring of a race control instruction- he should have been warned, then black flagged- pretty simple, instead they let him race so as to not 'ruin' the spectacle & afaiaa hit him with biggest time penalty they could (10s) ...the extra 5s seemed to be tacked on (how many first lap incidents have been left to be dealt till after the race?)

I'm not sure when this 'don't ruin spectacle attitude crept in, but it's a fine line when it takes precedence over a: the rule book & b: safety

F1 isn't & shouldn't be WWE imho

My opinion is pretty much the direct opposite of angrymoby's!

I think that Leclerc's contact with Verstappen was simple, bloody-minded refusal to be overtaken. He went into turn 2 too quick and made relatively heavy contact with Verstappen. Verstappen was clearly ahead at turn-in to turn 2 and gave Charles adequate space to negotiate the corner. Looking at the incident in isolation I might prefer that no penalty was applied under the well-known 'first couple of corners' leniency. With the wider view that the incident knocked Verstappen out of 3rd place and into retirement while Charles was able to continue, I can see why not penalizing Leclerc here might raise eyebrows- however I am still not sure what I think about the 'outcome-based' dishing out of penalties, which seems a bit artificial.

The second offense of continuing to drive with a car in a dangerous condition- do we know for sure that the stewards were insisting that Charles come in immediately? Nothing came up on the broadcast and there appeared to be no flag signals. Was it not just Ferrari asking Charles to come in? If so I think Charles' decision to stay out showed good initiative. A more 'colour by numbers' driver like a Lance Stroll for example would've obeyed and come straight in. I like to see this differentiation between the proactive, challenging future WDC mentality and the narrower bandwidth journeyman mentality. I would've liked to have seen how the race would've played out if Charles had stayed out. Maybe he could've had a decent battle with Albon for 4th. Much has been made about the end plate flying off, and sure it looked very dramatic and took Hamilton's rear view mirror off, but in my opinion carbon debris is simply an occupational hazard which is unfortunately implicit to modern F1 and can compromise anybody's race at any time. OK sure if one of the front wing pylons was broken and main planes are threatening to break off, insist that the driver comes in immediately, but an end fence- what, 100g or less? I don't believe it's likely to injure someone. Get a marshal out there to pick it up when possible.

IMO the rules looked as inconsistent than ever when you compare and contrast the above with the fact that Vettel clearly and visibly jumped the start in a similar way to Raikkonen at Sochi and somehow attracted no penalty? I realise it all has to do with the mechanism by which the offence is detected but to detect that one, only a pair of eyes was necessary.

I was starting to think I was the only one who thought that way...….

[Steamer]

Deesee said:

With regards to the jump start watch this


https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/dhqevb/...

Talk of multi camera views and everything else, this is from someone’s phone.

Yes - and it shows he stopped completely in a very short distance. I don't think there was any need for a penalty - it totally ruined his start as it was.

[Deesee]

The Surveyor said:

I was starting to think I was the only one who thought that way...….

Here’s the official decision, the car was due to come in on lap 1, then lap 2, finally lap 3, race control were not happy..

[Deesee]

Steamer said:

Deesee said:

With regards to the jump start watch this


https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/dhqevb/...

Talk of multi camera views and everything else, this is from someone’s phone.

Yes - and it shows he stopped completely in a very short distance. I don't think there was any need for a penalty - it totally ruined his start as it was.

The days of rolling a car for clutch control are behind us. Hand clutch for the start, and two peddles...

Standing/Grid starts are one of the best bits of the F1 weekend, advantage gained or not, he moved before lights out and well before the green light on the far pit wall so others react on the gas (Max and Bottas).

It has made me wonder if all the electrical sensors were working after they moved all the equipment on Friday from the tent to the garages. (There was a lot of it, Karun did a feature on the paddock walk).

Edited by Deesee on Wednesday 16th October 14:19

[TheInternet]

Deesee said:

With regards to the jump start watch this

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/dhqevb/...

Talk of multi camera views and everything else, this is from someone’s phone.

Thanks, I see now that Bottas completely fluked the start, and the slight movement made almost no difference to Vettel.

[Graveworm]

Steamer said:

Yes - and it shows he stopped completely in a very short distance. I don't think there was any need for a penalty - it totally ruined his start as it was.

But if there is not a significant penalty, for anticipation then they can go when they anticipate the lights will go out and abort if they get it wrong.

[The Surveyor]

Deesee said:

The Surveyor said:

I was starting to think I was the only one who thought that way...….

Here’s the official decision, the car was due to come in on lap 1, then lap 2, finally lap 3, race control were not happy..

No, read the official decision you posted, the car was not due to come in on Lap 1, the incident happened on Lap 1 and the team called race control during Lap 2 that they intended to bring him in at the end of that Lap. As the loose bits of bodywork came off during Lap 2 (before the scheduled pit stop but after Ferrari spoke to race control) and the driver was saying it was good to continue, it is not unreasonable for a car that no longer has any loose bodywork and that no longer possess a risk to other cars to stay out.

After the loose bits had fallen away, why would CLC need to pit other than to remedy any performance loss, at that point (mid-way around Lap 2) he no longer possessed any safety risk. Cars carrying on with broken bits of bodywork is nothing unique, it happens just about every race weekend, all without penalty.

[Graveworm]

The Surveyor said:

No, read the official decision you posted, the car was not due to come in on Lap 1, the incident happened on Lap 1 and the team called race control during Lap 2 that they intended to bring him in at the end of that Lap. As the loose bits of bodywork came off during Lap 2 (before the scheduled pit stop but after Ferrari spoke to race control) and the driver was saying it was good to continue, it is not unreasonable for a car that no longer has any loose bodywork and that no longer possess a risk to other cars to stay out.

After the loose bits had fallen away, why would CLC need to pit other than to remedy any performance loss, at that point (mid-way around Lap 2) he no longer possessed any safety risk. Cars carrying on with broken bits of bodywork is nothing unique, it happens just about every race weekend, all without penalty.

Well the team contacted the director after Charles didn't pit at the end of lap 1 which would have been the safest thing to do. They knew that they were risking censure. If they hadn't said they were coming in they would have been told to come in and would have been black flagged if they didn't. Saying we are coming in avoided that. 130R is hardly mid way around.
Clearly staying out during lap 2 caused danger. Without inspection or changing the wing I don't think they could be sure that no further danger would be caused. In any event they should have cleared the change in plan with the director.

[HustleRussell]

The Surveyor said:

No, read the official decision you posted, the car was not due to come in on Lap 1, the incident happened on Lap 1 and the team called race control during Lap 2 that they intended to bring him in at the end of that Lap. As the loose bits of bodywork came off during Lap 2 (before the scheduled pit stop but after Ferrari spoke to race control) and the driver was saying it was good to continue, it is not unreasonable for a car that no longer has any loose bodywork and that no longer possess a risk to other cars to stay out.

After the loose bits had fallen away, why would CLC need to pit other than to remedy any performance loss, at that point (mid-way around Lap 2) he no longer possessed any safety risk. Cars carrying on with broken bits of bodywork is nothing unique, it happens just about every race weekend, all without penalty.

Yep, I didn't know that beforehand but it is as I expected judging by the TV coverage. The team basically dobbed themselves in and committed to immediately pit against the (arguably) better judgment of the driver. The stewards did not instruct Ferrari to pit the car as they understood that they were anyway. Leclerc did not ignore a steward's instruction to come in at any point- he only ignored the team, which is his prerogative. When the stewards eventually instructed him to come in on lap 3, the end fence had already come off.

A bit of a mess which I am sure the Stewards and Ferrari will learn from, but I am not sure a penalty was necessary never mind 10 seconds which is a lifetime.

[HustleRussell]

Graveworm said:

Clearly staying out during lap 2 caused danger. Without inspection or changing the wing I don't think they could be sure that no further danger would be caused.

This is the sum total of the case in favour of a penalty. Fine. However we didn't see the stewards calling Max Verstappen, Alexander Albon, Lando Norris and Pierre Gasly despite each of these drivers shedding bits of carbon fibre at some time or another. We see drivers losing bits of bodywork in every race.

Verstappen did quarter of a race distance with 25% less downforce than he started with!

Yes, I realise the incident wasn't his fault, but if the explanation for bringing Leclerc in is safety, what difference does that make?

[ajprice]

HustleRussell said:

This is the sum total of the case in favour of a penalty. Fine. However we didn't see the stewards calling Max Verstappen, Alexander Albon, Lando Norris and Pierre Gasly despite each of these drivers shedding bits of carbon fibre at some time or another. We see drivers losing bits of bodywork in every race.

Verstappen did quarter of a race distance with 25% less downforce than he started with!

Yes, I realise the incident wasn't his fault, but if the explanation for bringing Leclerc in is safety, what difference does that make?

The other cars didn't have the bits of their cars hanging off for a lap then hitting the car behind at head height when it did come off.

[Deesee]

The guys above have posted my response, i May dig out the team radio for CLC later if I have time.

Should have (told to) box on lap one from my memory..

[HustleRussell]

ajprice said:

HustleRussell said:

This is the sum total of the case in favour of a penalty. Fine. However we didn't see the stewards calling Max Verstappen, Alexander Albon, Lando Norris and Pierre Gasly despite each of these drivers shedding bits of carbon fibre at some time or another. We see drivers losing bits of bodywork in every race.

Verstappen did quarter of a race distance with 25% less downforce than he started with!

Yes, I realise the incident wasn't his fault, but if the explanation for bringing Leclerc in is safety, what difference does that make?

The other cars didn't have the bits of their cars hanging off for a lap then hitting the car behind at head height when it did come off.

Charles didn't have bits hanging off his car when the stewards eventually insisted that he pitted. IMO if you want a penalty for Charles, their insistence that he pitted a relatively healthy car/set of tyres on lap 3 of a 53 lap race completely ruining any strategic hope of finishing well was penalty enough.

On your second point, they very much could've- you can't regulate the elevation at which a bit of loose carbon flies or forbid it from hitting another car no matter whose car it comes off from.

Looking at it from your perspective, this is another example of a penalty being based on an outcome over which the driver and team had no influence whatsoever.

Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 16th October 17:30

[The Surveyor]

ajprice said:

The other cars didn't have the bits of their cars hanging off for a lap then hitting the car behind at head height when it did come off.

No they didn't in that instance, but it happens all the time, often resulting in a marshal having to run out on track and recover bits of carbon. These front wing elements often come loose after minor accidents but are usually shaken off in slow corners when the car hits the rumble strips. It used to be the barge-boards which were equally vulnerable, yet no time penalties are imposed. There are also plenty of other instances where a driver has put other drivers at risk by not slowing or stopping with a damaged car, all without a penalty.

Only earlier this year Max carried on into Eu Rouge at full steam despite knowing his steering was broken following an impact with Kimi, yes it put him in the wall and out of the race but it could have caused a repeat of the fatal accident which happened the day earlier.... no fine or penalty to Max for driving a car in an unsafe condition there.

Again Seb drove his Ferrari at full speed at Bahrain despite knowing the vibration from the badly flat-spotted tyres put the whole car at risk, and when the front wing was eventually shaken off risking the cars around him..... no fine or penalty points there either.

Yet, CLC drives with a small piece of loose carbon and gets a 10 second penalty, doesn't feel fair entirely to me.

[HustleRussell]

The Surveyor said:

CLC drives with a small piece of loose carbon and gets a 10 second penalty, doesn't feel fair entirely to me.

Appears to fly in the face of 'let them race' doesn't it.

[Graveworm]

HustleRussell said:

Appears to fly in the face of 'let them race' doesn't it.

No it was the bits of carbon fibre that were flying in the face.

[angrymoby]

HustleRussell said:

My opinion is pretty much the direct opposite of angrymoby's!

ill allow it

HustleRussell said:

IMO the rules looked as inconsistent than ever when you compare and contrast the above with the fact that Vettel clearly and visibly jumped the start in a similar way to Raikkonen at Sochi and somehow attracted no penalty? I realise it all has to do with the mechanism by which the offence is detected but to detect that one, only a pair of eyes was necessary.

Agreed on this one ...& again, it seems it's not about 'let them race' it's about preserving the spectacle, which aren't necessarily the same thing