The Official Formula One Thread!

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

You want to see something dangerous?

Yes, I remember it, I saw it when it happened. And even then I was of the opinion that HAM should have been disqualified. Instead, he received a ridiculous penalty that allowed him to easily win the race. It was a bad joke.

You know, I'm not a professional pilot. I never was. I'm not even a fan. I am a simple spectator who just wants to enjoy the race. This is obviously a completely different perspective than someone who knows the rules exactly, is an expert on the subject, and is even good at what he does.

I, on the other hand, have other life experiences, and based on that I say that, in my humble opinion, this type of decision-making and this type of punishment system is not effective, not proportionate and mostly: NOT deterrent. In addition, decision-making in this form cannot be objective most of the time, but only subjective at best. As a result, I never criticize those who have to make a decision in a short period of time, but those who cannot make appropriate rules.

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by joli160

I think it is. The British press is rather biased. It’s kind of getting ridiculous.
Alonso has made similar remarks about the British bias in the past.

What Verstappen did was wrong but not dangerous, very slow speed, should have been 15 seconds instead of 20 seconds penalty.
With Herbert and McLaren’s founder as stewards this was to be expected. Herbert has been attacking Verstappen for years.
And another obvious one, will LeClerc get the same penalty for swearing ?
How these two clowns are stewards ?

All great champions of the past were ruthless drivers. Senna, Schumacher and even Hamilton who was running Verstappen of the track in Silverstone 2021 which was the last example of real dangerous driving at high speed.

You just don’t win with being nice

Can you show me evidence of british bias towards max? Everyone uses that line but can never come up with examples. If you REALLY want bias then look to the ziggo sport coverage back in 2021 and even to this day, some pretty disgracful comments about hamilton, ocon and others.

Just one example from the dutch f1 presenter, and yet horner/ max think sky is biased because they dont give max credit for his first title
https://www.formule1.nl/nieuws/formu...titels-cadeau/

If you check the whole of british media, youll probably find they write more bad things about hamilton, norris, russell than good. We do like to put ourselves down as a country!

I understand why there can be a ‘percieved bias’ when the main tv feed is british, theyre often talking aboit british drivers because theres several of them which have all been quite successful over the last few years so they tend to get a lot of air time. If you check sky over the last few years theyve practically been drooling over Maxs driving skills, and rightfully so. Unfortunatly we now have the 2021 max back and hes been called out for his actions.

If you want the opposite then check out channel 4 coverage in the uk which has coulthard as a commentator/ pundit which is predominantly a red bull racing show with tonnes of access etc

So when max says he has the wrong passport, its not that. There are 16 nationalities on the grid including other dutch drivers in the past few years….his percieved bias isnt towards a nationality, its towards him specifically, and its not bias, its calling him out for his actions

Not dangerous? Slow speed….turn 8 is well over 100mph….

Ahhh the british biased stewards…you forget it was a brit in Derek Warrick who penalised a british driver in Norris the week before…..maybe hes biased though because he owns a honda dealership who supply engines to red bull.
Herbert also penalised Hamilton at this years Dutch GP….but i guess thats bias too?

And of course, there are 4 stewards per race, of different nationalities who have to agree before a penalty can be applied. So i guess the mexican and luxenberg stewards were biased too?

No, it shouldnt have been 15 seconds. The penalties were consistent with previous incidents as 77T showed below.

In terms of leclerc, hes been called to the stewards for swearing today. It was too late in mexico to have a hearing so its been done in Brazil. You also have to remember leclerc apologised instantly, max is yet to do so.

Dont win by being nice? Show me where the likes of Lewis, Jenson, Rosberg, Hakkinen, Fangio, Stewart…..(i could go on) have run themselves and their competitors off the road to win races and the championship. They havent, its only a select few like prost, senna, schumacher, verstappen which are win at all cost.


Max and those surrounding him make me chuckle though. Its always someone elses fault, the system is biased, the whole world is against us, its never max. Not once have they ever given Max a bop on the nose or sat him on the naughty step. Sometimes you need to take a step back and question whether it is everyone else, or if you just need to take responsibilty for your actions.

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by INC

Yes, I remember it, I saw it when it happened. And even then I was of the opinion that HAM should have been disqualified. Instead, he received a ridiculous penalty that allowed him to easily win the race. It was a bad joke.

You know, I'm not a professional pilot. I never was. I'm not even a fan. I am a simple spectator who just wants to enjoy the race. This is obviously a completely different perspective than someone who knows the rules exactly, is an expert on the subject, and is even good at what he does.

I, on the other hand, have other life experiences, and based on that I say that, in my humble opinion, this type of decision-making and this type of punishment system is not effective, not proportionate and mostly: NOT deterrent. In addition, decision-making in this form cannot be objective most of the time, but only subjective at best. As a result, I never criticize those who have to make a decision in a short period of time, but those who cannot make appropriate rules.

The penalties allowed within the rules didnt allow a disqualification, nor would it have been consistent with previous incidents at the same corner. You punish the action, not the outcome. Of course im open to the rules changing but that opens a new can of worms.

Hamilton only had the chance to win the race because it was red flagged. Normally with the damage he had, along with the penalty he wouldnt have finied on the podium….and maybe not even the points.

At the time the stewards noted that lewis was predominantly to blame but max was also partially to blame because he checked his mirrors, knew lewis was there and took a second bite at the turn in after initially turning into the corner. He could have taken avoiding action like Max now expects others to do when he throws it down the inside…..

….you cant have it both ways. If you wanted Lewis disqualified at silverstone then you should also want max disqualified for incidents like Austin, Mexico, Brazil, Saudi Arabia where he brake checked lewis on the 180mph straight….again, its the action that is penalised, not the outcome. The outcome is largly determied by the other driver taking avoiding action…..its the intent that should be penalised, not how quickly the other guy jumps out of the way

[enjoythemusic]

Hmmm, i think Mika was a really good guy and drove nicely. Alonso wasn't 'ruthless' as best i recall.

Now Vettel, oh my, if i cut my wife off or she cuts me off we say "HEY, don't Vettel me!". True stuff.

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Hmmm, i think Mika was a really nice guy and drove nicely.

He was. Had some great battles with Schumacher. Fascinating bloke to talk to. I once shared a hot tub with the guy….but thats probably not meant for the internet

I wouldnt count Alonso as ruthless, id class him as insanely calculated. Incredibly intelligent driver, knew exactly where the line was and stayed on the right side of it. One of the best, if not the best tacticians out there…..

…unfortunately hes not so good off track as he is on it. Best not to bribe your employer or make really bad career moves. He should have 4 or 5 titles if not more

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Talon84

He (Alonso) should have 4 or 5 titles if not more

100% agreed. No one denies his immense talent, and he is respected by other drivers.

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by joli160

And another obvious one, will LeClerc get the same penalty for swearing ?
How these two clowns are stewards ?

Happy now?

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/l...ence/10669423/

[77T]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Lol-x]

Verstappen was interviewed and he was totally recalcitrant about his driving tactics.

[joli160]

Originally Posted by Talon84

Happy now?

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/l...ence/10669423/

It’s again double standard, only 5K penalty. How obvious

[1st amg]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

Verstappen was interviewed and he was totally recalcitrant about his driving tactics.

Damn you Steve, another word I had to Google Dictionary.

[INC]

Originally Posted by Talon84

You punish the action, not the outcome.

I fully agree with the case law. I can agree with the priority principle of examining the actual activity. I also agree that the punishment should not primarily depend on how much damage was caused.

In light of this, however, I particularly do not agree with the fact that we should not take the damage caused into account at all when imposing a fine. In these cases, I think it is not only intentionality that should be examined, but also whether the person being examined assessed the consequences of his dubious actions on others. The lack of this examination leads to the fact that the decisions feel completely inconsistent in the eyes of the outsider.

In the present case, for example, in turn 4, Max was absolutely not dangerous for others on THIS track, moreover, he was able to take the turn. And in THAT situation, there would be no doubt that anyone in the vehicle would perceive that they are further ahead or already behind at the apex. It follows from this that it is more than questionable to give a penalty point for this. IF I add to this that NOR also overtook and gained an advantage outside the track, then it is a question in itself why no one investigated this. It follows that this should have been the case when no one gets penalty, but NOR could have kept his position. After all, nothing special happened, they just raced.

On the other hand, in turn 8, MAX was specifically dangerous, because he presented a maneuver in a dangerous part of the track, which could easily have resulted in NOR being driven to the wall. Compared to that, he only received a time penalty. In this case, moreover, it was completely clear that MAX wanted to take revenge, he wanted to take it and beat NOR like a neurotic. If there had been a tank under him, he would have even rammed through him without any doubt. I don't think it's acceptable and it's not proportionate that when they race, someone gets a bigger punishment than when they want to take revenge and put the other pilots's life in danger.

And these cases, in my opinion, are ample reasons to amend the current system of rules, because it does not meet the necessity or the proportionality.

Of course im open to the rules changing but that opens a new can of worms.

It is of course true that no rule can be perfect. But it never hurts to try to improve them.

Hamilton only had the chance to win the race because it was red flagged.

Which happened BECAUSE of his life-threatening act. The least it would have been was to not be able to continue the race.

….you cant have it both ways.

You are right in that, but I am more black and white in this case: both of them should have been disqualified immediately. This is not a gladiatorial contest in the circus, but a race on a track. And that should not be allowed to be forgotten.

The outcome is largly determied by the other driver taking avoiding action…..its the intent that should be penalised, not how quickly the other guy jumps out of the way

That is why it would be more worthwhile to examine what effect it can have on the opponent when someone starts a maneuver, and what the outcome might be if they start a dangerous maneuver. Because if it is foreseeable that someone is intentionally endangering and playing a chicken game, then in my view, it cannot be tolerated. And the opposite is also true in my opinion, if one pilot acts like a chicken, then the other pilot cannot be blamed for being scared. This is F1 and not kindergarten.

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by joli160

It’s again double standard, only 5K penalty. How obvious

Did you read the article.

It’s not double standards. Leclerc apologised straight away…Verstappen didn’t. Leclerc got a lesser penalty because of this.

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by INC

I fully agree with the case law. I can agree with the priority principle of examining the actual activity. I also agree that the punishment should not primarily depend on how much damage was caused.

In light of this, however, I particularly do not agree with the fact that we should not take the damage caused into account at all when imposing a fine. In these cases, I think it is not only intentionality that should be examined, but also whether the person being examined assessed the consequences of his dubious actions on others. The lack of this examination leads to the fact that the decisions feel completely inconsistent in the eyes of the outsider.

In the present case, for example, in turn 4, Max was absolutely not dangerous for others on THIS track, moreover, he was able to take the turn. And in THAT situation, there would be no doubt that anyone in the vehicle would perceive that they are further ahead or already behind at the apex. It follows from this that it is more than questionable to give a penalty point for this. IF I add to this that NOR also overtook and gained an advantage outside the track, then it is a question in itself why no one investigated this. It follows that this should have been the case when no one gets penalty, but NOR could have kept his position. After all, nothing special happened, they just raced.

On the other hand, in turn 8, MAX was specifically dangerous, because he presented a maneuver in a dangerous part of the track, which could easily have resulted in NOR being driven to the wall. Compared to that, he only received a time penalty. In this case, moreover, it was completely clear that MAX wanted to take revenge, he wanted to take it and beat NOR like a neurotic. If there had been a tank under him, he would have even rammed through him without any doubt. I don't think it's acceptable and it's not proportionate that when they race, someone gets a bigger punishment than when they want to take revenge and put the other pilots's life in danger.

And these cases, in my opinion, are ample reasons to amend the current system of rules, because it does not meet the necessity or the proportionality.



It is of course true that no rule can be perfect. But it never hurts to try to improve them.



Which happened BECAUSE of his life-threatening act. The least it would have been was to not be able to continue the race.



You are right in that, but I am more black and white in this case: both of them should have been disqualified immediately. This is not a gladiatorial contest in the circus, but a race on a track. And that should not be allowed to be forgotten.



That is why it would be more worthwhile to examine what effect it can have on the opponent when someone starts a maneuver, and what the outcome might be if they start a dangerous maneuver. Because if it is foreseeable that someone is intentionally endangering and playing a chicken game, then in my view, it cannot be tolerated. And the opposite is also true in my opinion, if one pilot acts like a chicken, then the other pilot cannot be blamed for being scared. This is F1 and not kindergarten.

The biggest issue I have with your idea is that drivers can essentially take a dive like in football to get the other guy disqualified.

This is f1 where drivers and teams will take every advantage, even if that means having contact with a rival so you end in the gravel and they get a DSQ. Once the black flag is given, it can’t be reviewed afterwards.

I’m all for an in race or post race penalty to be upgraded to a DSQ post race though with all the evidence available

[enjoythemusic]

Shoulda DQ'ed Max for the Sprint race as part of his earlier penalties.

Sholda

Coulda

Woulda

[Talon84]

Fun sprint race that!

McLaren did what they needed to do but got lucky with the VSC. Leclerc and max too close to do it earlier. Bearman had a good showing, dissapointing from Sainz, poor from Hamilton

[INC]

Originally Posted by Talon84

This is f1 where drivers and teams will take every advantage, even if that means having contact with a rival so you end in the gravel and they get a DSQ. Once the black flag is given, it can’t be reviewed afterwards.

I’m all for an in race or post race penalty to be upgraded to a DSQ post race though with all the evidence available

This now sounds like when they argued against the death penalty decades ago And you are right about that, disqualification is indeed irreversible. I also did not mean that the referee could show a "red card" or the VAR could decide, because that would be an even more scandalous and inconsistent practice.

So the solution is probably somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, in some cases, it would be worthwhile to investigate the cases for a longer period of time, and on the other hand, it should be possible to assign much more serious penalties.

But you know, the best thing about all of this is that it's not my job to change the rules It's much more convenient to just give my opinion on them

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by INC

This now sounds like when they argued against the death penalty decades ago And you are right about that, disqualification is indeed irreversible. I also did not mean that the referee could show a "red card" or the VAR could decide, because that would be an even more scandalous and inconsistent practice.

So the solution is probably somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, in some cases, it would be worthwhile to investigate the cases for a longer period of time, and on the other hand, it should be possible to assign much more serious penalties.

But you know, the best thing about all of this is that it's not my job to change the rules It's much more convenient to just give my opinion on them

Haha yup! Trust me I don’t disagree with you on this. The racer and fan in me wants to see people penalised the same amount as the driver they take out, I’m just trying to put my rules hat on which would mean it adds more inconsistency/ interpretation and arguments about bias.

If you go down that route you need a single person that is referee that everyone trusts to be fair, but that’s almost impossible.

[Talon84]

Eek max could be in trouble here.

Overtaking or at least drawing alongside under VSC…big no no. That’ll be a 5 second penalty and licence points if judged that Oscar didn’t brake check him etc. obvs stewards will have data from all the cars so will be best to judge this either way. One onboard isnt usually enough

https://x.com/SkySportsF1/status/185...887584131?mx=2

[INC]

Originally Posted by Talon84

Haha yup! Trust me I don’t disagree with you on this. The racer and fan in me wants to see people penalised the same amount as the driver they take out, I’m just trying to put my rules hat on which would mean it adds more inconsistency/ interpretation and arguments about bias.

If you go down that route you need a single person that is referee that everyone trusts to be fair, but that’s almost impossible.

Honestly, I didn't think we would agree, but this moment has come

Originally Posted by Talon84

Eek max could be in trouble here.

And about the investigation against Max:

In my view, this time the race control was completly unfair. They were left to race right up until the McLarens were able to switch positions, but when MAX got there, the SC immediately came. However, by canceling SC, they waited exactly until MAX could no longer overtake PIA. I understand the need to support McLaren, but it shouldn't be so obvious. That's not fair.

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by INC

Honestly, I didn't think we would agree, but this moment has come



And about the investigation against Max:

In my view, this time the race control was completly unfair. They were left to race right up until the McLarens were able to switch positions, but when MAX got there, the SC immediately came. However, by canceling SC, they waited exactly until MAX could no longer overtake PIA. I understand the need to support McLaren, but it shouldn't be so obvious. That's not fair.

Haha our views arent always that far apart, i just like to present a counter argument for discussion which would be boring without another view, right?! Aslong as people arent blinkered and can accept other peoples views its healthy :-)

Cant disagree that via live tv the timing of the VSC looked ‘interesting’ but id like to see more information on the timings first. I know from experience having been an MSA steward in the uk that these things dont usually happen instantly, they like to give the driver time to remove the car.

I dont fully trust the stewards but i also dont fully trust my own view, 3000 miles away with one camera angle and no data either!

[Talon84]

So Max is penalised, drops to 4th.

His penalty is for going too fast under the VSC just before it ended, so has nothing to do with the 2 mclarens that maintained their deltas.

I suspect a simple misjudgment by max trying to get an advantage to pass piastri and just didnt judge the restart properly so not deliberate. Silly mistake by max though, his win at all cost mentality has cost him a good haul of points in the last week or so.

Rules is rules though and anything udner yellow flag, vsc, sc is pretty black and white

Only 1 point lost, lando still 44 behand so a mammoth task to win the championship, max still in the box seat


VERY IMPORTANT to note here. The stewards who awarded the penalty ARE NOT the race director who called the VSC start and end. They act independantly.

Irrispective of the VSC timing its a slam dunk penalty that the stewards awarded correctly through maxs error

[INC]

To be honest, I don't think Max will stay in F1 for long, maybe he will retire at the end of next year. It's not a big deal after all, the more boring the choo-choo train track gets, the more people will watch it.

Or not.

[joli160]

It must be a conspiracy against verstappen …

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by INC

To be honest, I don't think Max will stay in F1 for long, maybe he will retire at the end of next year. It's not a big deal after all, the more boring the choo-choo train track gets, the more people will watch it.

Or not.

Maybe he likes boring choo choo trains. The more exciting it gets, the more he threatens to leave, the more he cant cope with the competition and runs them off track.

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by joli160

It must be a conspiracy against verstappen …

You joke, but you should see the tin foil hats on the red bull racing socials….

[Talon84]

Dont think qually will run tonight….so…

Either qually will run in the morning if theres a weather window (most likely scenario)
Qually will be set by the result of the sprint race meaning lando pole, max starts 9th
Qually will be set by the result of FP1 meaning lando pole, max last!

Noone seems sure what scenario it will be at the moment.

Max was 15th in FP1 because he bailed out of his fast lap after the last turn to hide his pace….wonder if that will come back to bite him?

[RichardBartlett]

Q cancelled as predicted ^

[joli160]

A race in the rain, nice for a change.

Some season this is, best I can remember.

[Lol-x]

Originally Posted by 1st amg

Damn you Steve, another word I had to Google Dictionary.

Sorry bro, I hope they are good words

Verstappen notches up another penalty.

Seems like Verstappen's idea of pushing the boundaries are just crashing through the boundaries with the hope that the stewards will not enforce the boundaries.

Such a blatant and contumelious approach is justification for higher or harsher penalties from the stewards.

Like you could see the gap between Verstappen and Piastri close right up under the virtual safety car. Verstappen must have been thinking he can get the jump on Piastri if he just speeds up under the virtual safety car. Its a deliberate attempt to get an on track advantage against another driver and hope the stewards don't pick up or enforce the infringement.

What is needed is not just a 5 or 10 or 20 second penalty but the deduction of WDC points to have the appropriate level of deterrence and accountability for illegal activity.