Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 9:32:22 GMT
And another thing - Charle Leclerc is making a few rookie errors. He's forgiven, because he's a rookie, but methinks he needs to give Seb a run in qualifying before too long.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Jun 11, 2019 13:38:02 GMT
A great deal of air space devoted to the penalty imposed upon Vettel most of which posted elsewhere other than RRT isn't worth bothering with at it is just "fan boys" applying their own opinion as to who they favour.
When I saw the incident initially it struck me that Sebastian had collected the car up from his error and then did the normal squeeze on his opponent who was taking an opportunist move around the outside of his car. I am still minded to follow that idea and having read Mark Hughes take on things I would say if it is good enough for him then it is for me also; pure and simple a racing incident.
The minute points discussed by those wishing to apportion blame, and sustain the penalty, seriously would not hold water in a court of law with the defence brief well versed. Firstly it is stated that Sebastian moved his head in the direction of his mirrors; so what is there proof that he actually looked into them. Of course there isn't as he had a dark visor and there isn't currently technology available to actually substantiate that fact, anymore than anyone could actually know what Vettel was thinking at that time.
Secondly the comparison used to come up with a similar case scenario was ill applied. The Verstappen/Kimi incident at Suzuka was in no way similar as it was a different situation and had different terrain. A more telling comparison would have been that of Hamilton and Ricciardo at Monaco a few years ago when Lewis made a mistake under pressure at the harbour chicane and upon exiting the chicane the Aussie had a run on him prompting Hamilton to squeeze Daniel into the outside barrier; no penalty applied on that occasion.
Now conversely there could have been a totally different outcome to this situation if Herr Vettel had been a real team player and knowing as he admitted after the race that Hamilton was actually faster, he could easily have completely lost control of the car and "accidentally T-Boned" the MB, result both out and Ferrari and Charles win the Canadian GP.
On the subject of Charles Leclerc I felt very annoyed at the strategy Ferrari used with the young man. making him have a long first stint seriously compromised his race, he lost around 10 seconds to Sebastian & lewis as a result of that; shades of Ferrari and Kimi there. If Charles had been given the same strategy (the excuse of them gambling on a safety car is pretty poor) he would have been right with them at the end and two red cars against the silver would have been pretty enthralling. It still goes through my mind that Ferrari wished to keep Charles away from Sebastian at all costs, especially as his long run pace was more impressive. It hasn't escaped my notice either that the team apparently failed to tell Charles that sensation had been given a time penalty, how strange.
I will not comment on whether I think the race was exciting as my mind was still in awe of the Isle Of Man TT races where the adrenaline is pumping and the sight of Peter Hickman drifting his BMW Superbike at 180mph over the mountain makes F1 look like kindergarten material.
One final thing, F1 seriously shot themselves in the foot with this as the sport desperately needed another team to win a race this year, and in all fairness Sebastian did enough to warrant the win. F1 currently reminds me of the political state in the UK; wood and trees come ro mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jun 11, 2019 15:55:30 GMT
Nicely put Charles. I have refrained from really commenting up until now as I wanted to collect my thoughts after the initial burst of anger and the resulting flood of adrenalin. These then are my thoughts/observations:
Seb made a mistake driving under pressure. Many top notch drivers have done and will continue to do so. It is exciting enough in the current season to see somebody leading actually being put under pressure.
He recovered brilliantly from the mistake without losing too much time. That has been lost in all the hubris. Had Hamilton not been within 10 secs Seb would have still taken the same line and ended up where he did at the same speed if he was trying to recover from the same incident.
Hamilton, to my mind, made an error of judgement and tried to pass Seb in a place where it was obvious the Ferrari was going to end up anyway given the trajectory of the Ferrari. If Seb had spun Hamilton would have been caught up in it. When his tactic didn't work he complained in a manner which he knew would get the Stewards' attention. He then pleaded innocence in the whole affair. A bit disingenuous to me. Hamilton should of backed off enough so that he could have taken the inside line and passed Seb that way.
I doubt Charlie Whiting would have sent it to the stewards. Certainly I don't think it would have raised more than an eyebrow in Indycar, worse happens at 220mph at Indy.
I think stewards who haven't won F1 races shouldn't be Stewards. The fact that there was no accident shows that that Seb and Lewis are skilled enough to avoid an accident.
If Seb hadn't gone off but had performed that same move as part of the normal racing nothing would have been said.
Mercedes and Hamilton grabbed a chance to win a race they weren't going to win.
Toto Woolfe is a politically expedient arrogant jerk.
Both Mercedes and their driver went down in my estimation as sportsmen. It might be the modern way and F1 is just a microcosm of the world at large but it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
Ricardio's blocks on Bottas were far more dangerous and nothing was done and Mercedes didn't complain.
Hamilton's block of Danny Ric at Monaco a few seasons ago was much more cynical and worthy of a penalty.
In a week that a brave rider lost his life in the Isle of Man TT, racing in an incredibly dangerous environment, F1 looked like little boys playing at being men and their self justification for ruining a sporting event was pious, exasperating and nauseating.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Jun 11, 2019 15:57:07 GMT
And another thing - Charle Leclerc is making a few rookie errors. He's forgiven, because he's a rookie, but methinks he needs to give Seb a run in qualifying before too long. You do have a point there Bill. Charles needs another good result. He out qualified Seb in Bahrein, should have out qualified him in Baku (where he was faster in every session before his mistake) and probably could have in Monaco where he was very fast before the team's mistake. But I'm convinced he'll get there. Seb was strong though in Canada. Not easy to beat Seb if the car is to his liking, he's still bloody quick!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jun 12, 2019 4:41:34 GMT
you know it says something about F1 when the discussions following the GP are more interesting than the race, either way I am sorry but F1 lost, again, it does seem as if the FIA are seemingly trying to sabotage the Liberty deal so they can buy back F1, I jest of course...but I learned something about Mr Todt recently that has totally changed my opinion of him, he's a Jim Clark fan, which makes him ok in my mind.
on a more serious note, what does Mercedes Benz get out of this domination? their tactics are dubious and their 'honesty' questionable, I am aware they are going into Formula E and maybe they will be the start of the car manufacturers deserting F1 and leaving it to us fans again.
I do wonder why Ferrari seem to hobbling Charles and wonder if it is part of the contract that Seb wins, and as others have said, if you are quicker in practice Charles it makes it more difficult to slow you down.
despite the current negativity, i do see some positives with the younger drivers coming up, bringing with them that freshness F1 needs
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Jun 12, 2019 16:03:15 GMT
Hamilton, to my mind, made an error of judgement and tried to pass Seb in a place where it was obvious the Ferrari was going to end up anyway given the trajectory of the Ferrari. If Seb had spun Hamilton would have been caught up in it. When his tactic didn't work he complained in a manner which he knew would get the Stewards' attention. He then pleaded innocence in the whole affair. A bit disingenuous to me. Hamilton should of backed off enough so that he could have taken the inside line and passed Seb that way. Absolutely spot on Rob! A driver with Hamilton's experience should most definitely not have placed himself in that position; he screwed up just as Sebastian had done seconds earlier. Can you imagine JYS, for instance, putting himself in that position, even a highly energetic Gilles would not have done that as he had more awareness. To then squeal to the stewards via his radio transmission that what Vettel had done was "dangerous" is an absolute disgrace and highly unsporting, but sadly it is something he has become well versed in, ably supported by the Tonto. I actually remember him saying once after he had despatched Rosberg Jnr in similar fashion that if you attempt an overtake on the outside, then you must expect to get pushed off! Short memories some folk! I have read that Ross Brawn is saying that there was no alternative motive in applying the penalty, probably not but it showed a lack of foresight and even more importantly a lack of actual consistency, my views on Brawn are diminishing by the day. With respect of the stewards who imposed the penalty I cannot believe that it was all Emanuele Pirro's decision alone, as I have huge respect for the man, both as a driver and a true gentleman. He is an enthusiast foremost who to this day drives classic race cars with verve and amazing speed, along with such enthusiasm it is infectious. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jun 12, 2019 16:24:43 GMT
Mikael,
The first photograph presents a wonderful depiction of changing eras, with eventual race winner Sterling Moss in his rear-engine Cooper-Climax passing Dan Gurney's Ferrari with ease and, apparently, permission, at Monza in 1959.
I've never understood the logic of those wooden barriers at Aintree, which appear dangerous in the extreme.
Cheers, Carl
|
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jun 12, 2019 17:52:59 GMT
Hi Charles, EP would not be the only one making the decision. I know one of the other stewards is a lawyer which I don't think would help no matter how passionate he may be about motor sport. My reasoning for using F1 winners is that would have a better idea of what it is like to win a GP, the cost of losing and what goes into winning consistently. F1 is at a much higher and competitive level than other motor sports. I just don't see many GP winners as stewards and wonder if it would make a difference to the decisions. Preferably the same one or two would attend all the races. Better still rewrite the rule book.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jun 15, 2019 6:00:45 GMT
totally agree Rob, the rule book has become a burden to racing, although interestingly I note that Ferrari have withdrawn their appeal. As for stewards, I am undecided I do think by the time you get to F1 you have probably won something, so are aware of that mentality, but does that make you an effective steward? How does one become a steward? do you have a job interview and scenarios where you have to pass judgement? I don't know, I am guessing a lawyer - and doesn't that sum up F1?- is there for any possible ramifications of decisions but, I guess that is the modern culture. I would like to know and wouldn't it be great if MS did a series of articles explaining how stewards are appointed, how anyone is appointed in the FIA, I mean I don't even know who has taken over from the sadly missed Charlie and who appointed them.
I was thinking, what it will take to knock MB off their pedestal, and whether Ferrari are trying too hard, I know in other sports when you try too hard you lose what advantages you had, when you take a step back and think, hang on I am better than you at this, do you start winning, I don't know if that is the case or not, but surely something has to give sometime
|
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jun 15, 2019 6:26:35 GMT
Well said Chris. I have thought about the stewards' panel quite a bit since I wrote that comment. There are four guys on the panel and only one is a racing driver. No disrespect to Emanuele was intended but I do think the panel should have more drivers on it. If only one voice out of four is a driver then racing will suffer. The fact that we have a lawyer on the panel says it all as you rightly said.
I also agree with you re Ferrari trying to hard to beat Mercedes. They should just relax and enjoy what they have. I got the same insight yesterday watching the one West Indian batsman. Ferrari is driven by passion, they should use that to their advantage rather than trying to emulate the teutonic precision of Merc. As a lover of sports because of the emotion and joy it produces, I would rather see a passionate outfit try and fail than a machine like outfit win. I may be imagining things but the joy displayed by Mercedes after a win seems forced and not as spontaneous as when other teams win.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Jun 15, 2019 10:18:13 GMT
I also agree with you re Ferrari trying to hard to beat Mercedes. They should just relax and enjoy what they have. I think that is exactly what Binotto said when he started his job as team principal. Much more approachable than Arrivabene and always a smile when interviewed but when the results don't come and the pressure from the Italian press builds and builds, staying relaxed becomes very difficult I can imagine. For Binotto and the team. I agree Ferrari should not try to emulate Mercedes too much. Stay close to the heart and race with passion. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jun 15, 2019 23:13:03 GMT
totally agree Rob, the rule book has become a burden to racing, although interestingly I note that Ferrari have withdrawn their appeal. As for stewards, I am undecided I do think by the time you get to F1 you have probably won something, so are aware of that mentality, but does that make you an effective steward? How does one become a steward? do you have a job interview and scenarios where you have to pass judgement? I don't know, I am guessing a lawyer - and doesn't that sum up F1?- is there for any possible ramifications of decisions but, I guess that is the modern culture. I would like to know and wouldn't it be great if MS did a series of articles explaining how stewards are appointed, how anyone is appointed in the FIA, I mean I don't even know who has taken over from the sadly missed Charlie and who appointed them. I was thinking, what it will take to knock MB off their pedestal, and whether Ferrari are trying too hard, I know in other sports when you try too hard you lose what advantages you had, when you take a step back and think, hang on I am better than you at this, do you start winning, I don't know if that is the case or not, but surely something has to give sometime I've wondered whether the permanent stewards persuaded Emanuele Pirro into agreement against his better judgement. He may have been hesitant to dispute bureaucrats in their domain and unanimous. As for the compliance of Nico Rosberg, he acts like someone who's agreed not to disagree with Mercedes AMG Petronas. All of which is par for the course in corporate boardrooms, where one hand washes the other and both come away dirty. |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jun 16, 2019 6:47:53 GMT
Yep Carl re Nico. I have noticed this year that he sings LH's praises ad nauseum which is a change from when he first started. I think he has lost his objectivity wrt to Mercedes and Lewis.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Jun 16, 2019 9:59:14 GMT
Yep Carl re Nico. I have noticed this year that he sings LH's praises ad nauseum which is a change from when he first started. I think he has lost his objectivity wrt to Mercedes and Lewis. Yes, it's a bit weird as I always thought Nico was a descent bloke. But he hasn't said a friendly word about Seb all year and his constant praise of Lewis is a bit over the top. He was very outspoken about the penalty for Seb that it was the right thing to do. Of course he is entitled to his opinion, like Jolyen Palmer (...), but there are not many of his former colleagues who agree... Jacques Villeneuve: "I wasn't surprised by Vettel's penalty, because it's often the opposite of what happens," Villeneuve told Autosport. "Ricciardo deserved a penalty for the way he drove in a straight line, and he didn't get one. It's often been like that. "It's bad for F1 anyway. "It ruined the race because it was a bad call, not because, 'It should have been a different winner.' "If Vettel had done something dirty or bad, like Ricciardo did on the straight, that would have deserved a penalty, and that would have been fine, even though it would have been another Lewis win. "That's not the issue, it's not that it could have been a Ferrari win, you can't take that into account." Villeneuve says he disagrees with the penalty levied, mainly because he did not believe that Vettel did anything intentionally wrong in the incident. "There should be a difference between intentional and when you go through a corner and get back on the track sideways," he added. "And mostly because the driver behind knows what's happening. Lewis knew where Vettel was going. "[Vettel] could have come across the track much more aggressively, and he didn't. "It's not a question of letting them race, because 'let them race' means people do dirty, stupid stuff. "You should never do anything intentional that forces another driver to back off or put him in danger, that's one thing." "But you go across a chicane, you get back on the gas as hard as you can, even if it might be risking other drivers, because the guys behind know, 'This guy is in the grass, he'll probably get sideways, the chances are I'll be squished... OK, I'll go for the inside.' "Lewis did the right thing, he managed to impose a penalty on Vettel. He's very good at that!" |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jun 16, 2019 17:19:25 GMT
Thanks René. I agree with JV. I wonder if NR is missing being the centre of attention now he is just another retired world champion. There are more retired world champions (14) than those actually racing, of which there are only three.
|
|
