1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: Canadian Grand Prix 2019, Montréal - Race 7/21

Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by Shimmy, Jun 5, 2019.

?

Rate the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix out of ten

  1. 1

    10.4%
  2. 2

    4.2%
  3. 3

    4.2%
  4. 4

    7.3%
  5. 5

    12.5%
  6. 6

    27.1%
  7. 7

    19.8%
  8. 8

    11.5%
  9. 9

    1.0%
  10. 10

    2.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vanpeebles

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 22, 2004

    Posts: 5,744

    Location: County Durham

    I like it :D
     
  2. CaptainRAVE

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Nov 21, 2004

    Posts: 31,362

    I never really rated Massa myself, he was too prone to crashing into people. Then again, Vettel was the original crash kid. We've never seen Ricciardo under any real pressure either, certainly not fighting for championships. I doubt he'd be smiling as often. Still not sure if I would put Vettel in my top 5 though. I definitely agree with at least your top 4.

    :p
     
  3. justbeats

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 3,451

    Location: Right here

    If Vettel has a contract regards Leclerc there will be a performance clause within it, which he has surely breached. If he doesn't have a performance clause then that's down to Binotto. And yes spinning is a leadership problem because as a manager, be it in retail, health, or motorsport, you ARE ultimately responsible for those under you. Again I'll remind you that Arrivabene was sacked because he didn't deliver, he didn't deliver because Vettel dropped the ball time and time again in a GREAT car.
     
  4. drunkenmaster

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 33,075

    You think a contract signed years ago is the fault of Binotto who took over in January? Also if there are performance clauses with in it, why do you think they've been breached? He's outqualified Leclerc and has more points than him. He's had preferential treatment in some races, but he's also outperformed leclerc so far.

    Also no, spinning isn't a leadership problem directly, in that once again Binotto didn't hire Vettel nor will he have the authority to sack him. For me any Ferrari boss who keeps hold of Vettel once his contract is up would be failing. WE don't know why Arrivabene was fired, he may have been fired because he was determined to give Vettel a new contract while Binotto and the hirer ups wanted to get rid of him and bring in Verstappen.
     
  5. cuke2u

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 27, 2006

    Posts: 2,343

    Location: East Sussex

    Unfortunately though, when Ferrari held an inquest into last years performance, they came to the conclusion that both drivers were unduly pressurised into making errors by not having a GOOD enough car and by decision making.
    As far as Charles is concerned he admits himself that his Q3 performances are poor because he cannot get the setup right...
     
  6. ScoobyDoo69

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 9,361

    Location: West Midlands

    I noticed the AWS insights/analytics for the first time with this race with the split timings, for chances of overtaking - trying to find a clip of it to show a colleague. Anyone help out?

    I'm obviously blind, not noticed it at all before:

    https://aws.amazon.com/f1insights/
     
  7. Flibster

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 31,259

    Ferrari are not appealing.

    (insert joke here)
     
  8. SDK^

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,333

  9. Steampunk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 1, 2013

    Posts: 6,537

    He said the rules were broken, the penalty was correctly given under the rules, but the rules should be changed. What he doesn't say is that those rules were implemented with the agreement of the teams and drivers to prevent big crashes that used to kill people. So the rules get changed back, and then what? We'll hear all the drivers complaining about unsafe blocking, about corner cutting and unsafe rejoining of the track, and something will get done when there's a massive crash and possibly drivers get hurt or killed.

    If what Vettel did had gone wrong, there would have been one or two cars smashing sidewise into that wall, and we'd all be saying how terrible it was. How many drivers out there who aren't as wiley as Hamilton would have just kept their foot in to try and make the pass, and then Vettel would have had them both into the wall.
     
  10. SDK^

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,333

    Within racing there will always be a risk associated with driver safety. In this this area it currently appears the risk appetite is very adverse, to the point where it is getting in the way of racing and 'the show'.
    No one wants drivers to be harmed or killed, but we also don't want over the top controls which prevent competitive on track racing action. The balance needs to be addressed.
     
  11. Steampunk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 1, 2013

    Posts: 6,537

    It comes down to that first rule of "race on the track". A driver that cuts off the circuit either deliberately or due to a failure of their skill or car should not benefit (or fail to lose a benefit). In the old days there would have been a gravel trap that would have penalised the driver. They were removed for safety reasons, and to allow a driver to continue in the race despite making a mistake.

    We shouldn't be in a position where a driver can leave the track, cut a corner, and still keep a place they would otherwise lose if they'd followed the track as everyone else has to. That's actually against racing fairly, and removes the penalty that keeps drivers on the track. Those penalties were only introduced when gravel traps were removed, and I'm sure that drivers don't want gravel traps coming back instead.
     
  12. SDK^

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,333

    Fair enough if they had been fighting for position before the corner, but Hamilton was 1+ seconds behind, so Vettel gained no advantage, he lost time which was the penalty for running off.

    Unless your view is that; when a driver goes off track they need to let any drivers behind who are within 5 Secs(?) go by?
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
  13. mmj_uk

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 26, 2003

    Posts: 22,997

    Another byproduct of the ultra safety is that drivers are not afraid to be 100% on the limit all of the time knowing that any mistake or loss of traction will mean they just run wide and rejoin with hardly any time lost, rather than retire like the old days. So you've got all drivers on the limit all of the time which I'm sure hinders overtaking/racing. Back in the day drivers would have had their sights on just not losing the car and finishing the race, so there would have been periods during a race where individual drivers would have felt that they couldn't risk pushing as much as they wanted to and would be overtaken by drivers who in that moment were comfortable being on the limit.

    TLDR F1 has been dumbed down too much, it's basically the extreme opposite of Isle of Man TT at this point where the drivers get paid massive amounts to be 99% safe.
     
  14. mmj_uk

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 26, 2003

    Posts: 22,997

    He forced Hamilton to brake who otherwise would have flown past him it was simple as that really, Hamilton would have been past if he hadn't been blocked because he was carrying much more speed.
     
  15. Steampunk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 1, 2013

    Posts: 6,537

    Hamilton would have had that place on momentum and the corner exit speed except he braked to avoid the big accident. What did Vettel do to avoid the accident he would have caused? As per the stewards investigation, Vetel checked where Hamilton was, then pushed him out towards the wall to stay in front, instead of staying to the left in an attempt to rejoin safely. If there had been a wall or gravel trap on that corner that Vetel failed to make, then he would have been out of the race or much further back.
     
  16. CaptainRAVE

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Nov 21, 2004

    Posts: 31,362

  17. justbeats

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 3,451

    Location: Right here

  18. The_Abyss

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2007

    Posts: 11,658

    Location: Ipswich / Bodham

    I cannot see why Ferrari continue to indulge Vettel in such a way. There's no chance that Lauda or Wolff would have allowed things to go this far.
     
  19. CaptainRAVE

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Nov 21, 2004

    Posts: 31,362

    It just makes his behaviour and consequently his driving worse. They would have been better off drawing a line under it and attacking this weekend. As it is it stinks of desperation from the lot of them and deflection from the real issues.
     
  20. kitfit1

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 24, 2003

    Posts: 3,223

    Location: Stourport-On-Severn

    This is being lodged under "The Right to Review" rule. Unless Ferrari and Vettel come up with some new evidence that wasn't available to the stewards at the time and is actually relevant to the incident, it will be thrown out anyway.
    Having watched the incident loads of times now myself, the stewards had no option but to do what they did. When you look at the in car footage from Vettel's car, as he comes back on track he straightens the steering wheel, turns his head to the right looking in the mirror and then slowly turns the steering wheel to the right. At that point he is then running Hamilton into the barrier. That's why he got the penalty, he did it deliberately and the footage is proof of that. It isn't the first time he's done it either and i doubt it'll be the last.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.