Formula 1 2019

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

13 hours ago, Andrew P said:

...As for Q3, how about making it compulsory that the Cars have to leave the Pit Lane 3 minutes before the Red Lights?

There is no need for a rule change. The team strategists will work it out for themselves, we cannot let the drivers make that mistake again.

3 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

...This allowed Hamilton to close until he got squeezed off the track. As they approached the corner, I knew this was going to happen. Either this was ok...or it wasn't. It was Hamilton's best opportunity to pass so a black/white flag was meaningless...

That was always going to be a racing incident in my opinion, whatever the race location. F1 wants spectacle, it's commercial, it has to sell to succeed. Hamilton knows this, and also knows that in 2019 finishing every race with good points is all that matters now, and he has the car under him to achieve it.

 

Every race from now on where he hasn't taken pole or an early lead and then converted that into a comfortable cushion, getting roughed up by whoever is most competitive will be a constant. For all the other drivers on the track a win is what they desperately need. Whereas Hamilton only has to finish...

[njee20]

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Now Ferrari have a new star, SB will probably have to adopt the second driver role and behave as Kimi did last year. Unless that is,  he can turn things around in the last seven races and overtake Leclerc's points haul significantly (even if he doesn't win a race). However, such a emotional organisation as Ferrari may simply concentrate on CL's side of the garage, see SB as a lost cause and a parting of the ways will follow. The next two or three races will probably define SB's future.

Why do you always write SB for Vettel? I assumed at first it was a typo, but it's consistent. Am I missing something?

 

46 minutes ago, RedgateModels said:

 

I think if Lewis was not so far ahead then Toto would consider an appeal too, but being magnanimous in defeat probably suits him in this case.

Yep, sets a bit of a precedent too (and Leclerc argued that Max in Austria set the precedent he followed), so that in future Lewis can claim "well I left more space than Charles did in Monza". It makes the stewards jobs harder down the line, and blurs the line between 'applying the rules' and 'doing so consistently'. 

If anything I thought his late move to block after the first chicane on the second 'incident' was worse than running Lewis wide into the second chicane. It was abrupt and late.

[Oldddudders]

11 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

That was always going to be a racing incident in my opinion, whatever the race location. F1 wants spectacle, it's commercial, it has to sell to succeed. Hamilton knows this, and also knows that in 2019 finishing every race with good points is all that matters now, and he has the car under him to achieve it.

 

Every race from now on where he hasn't taken pole or an early lead and then converted that into a comfortable cushion, getting roughed up by whoever is most competitive will be a constant. For all the other drivers on the track a win is what they desperately need. Whereas Hamilton only has to finish...

Logically you are right. But F1 drivers aren't always logical. Lewis wants to win every race. It's why he's there. The Championship is just icing on his cake. 

[njee20]

Yes I think the reality is somewhere in the middle. He's not going to take crazy risks (like hitting Leclerc to prove a point yesterday), because he's eyeing up the championship, but he's not going to submissively let everyone through and be content to finish 5th in every race from now to preserve the championship.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Logically you are right. But F1 drivers aren't always logical. Lewis wants to win every race. It's why he's there. The Championship is just icing on his cake. 

I feel there's evidence that while the win is very clearly 'the thing', there's a sufficient value in being world champion to make him realistic about whether to go for it, or to settle for a high points finish.

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Now Ferrari have a new star, SB will probably have to adopt the second driver role and behave as Kimi did last year. Unless that is,  he can turn things around in the last seven races and overtake Leclerc's points haul significantly (even if he doesn't win a race). However, such a emotional organisation as Ferrari may simply concentrate on CL's side of the garage, see SB as a lost cause and a parting of the ways will follow. The next two or three races will probably define SB's future.

Who is this SB? Have I missed a team imposed surname change to Barrichello to make it clear 'now rear gunner'.

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

Toto, referring to Leclerc almost nudging Lewis out of the way, obviously agrees with me. 

 

"The racing was very hard, maybe over the line," he continued, "and Lewis, I think, was instrumental in not making it an incident.

"But at the end of the day, what do you do? You give a leading Ferrari in Monza a five-second penalty? Out of the question, because then we need a police escort out of here."

 

Mind you, nothing new under the sun, as they say. I was at Brands for the '76 GP, and after a major shunt at the start, James Hunt was penalised for having cut through to regain the pits, rather than complete a lap under red flag. He was going to be disqualified, but the crowd turned ugly, so he was reinstated and won. And then had the win disallowed a couple of months later. But it isn't just Latins who felt things deeply. 

 

1 hour ago, RedgateModels said:

 

I think if Lewis was not so far ahead then Toto would consider an appeal too, but being magnanimous in defeat probably suits him in this case.

 

I think Toto recognised  the victory belonged to LeClerc, he had the quicker car where it mattered, had it been the other way around we would be arguing that LH shouldn't have been penalised.  He also knew second and third was a massive haul of points for the Mercedes team and with LH wrecking his tyres in pursuit of getting into first he also knew that at some point LH was going to have to come in for tyres and would end up third.  LH was never going to win, his only chance was the undercut and it didn't work, once he spent too much time behind LeClerc on the track it was going to be Bottas who benefitted which he did.

 

LH had run off space which he had enough time to use, LeClerc cut the chicane once as he locked up, again he was in the lead and wasn't under pressure of being overtaken at that very point.

 

It's time the stewards did back off a little and use warnings rather than simply apply penalties, it gives the drivers more freedom again to defend - the excitement of motor racing not only comes from the overtaking but also the ability to defend.

[woodenhead]

55 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I feel there's evidence that while the win is very clearly 'the thing', there's a sufficient value in being world champion to make him realistic about whether to go for it, or to settle for a high points finish.

Who is this SB? Have I missed a team imposed surname change to Barrichello to make it clear 'now rear gunner'.

Should be SR, Raikonen has always been a dutiful rear gunner.

[woodenhead]

2 hours ago, Andrew P said:

I saw the same thing, plus another that said Alonso had slagged off the Honda Engine so much that Red Bull would not want him.

 

I still think it's Seb last season, mind you, I thought that last year and was proved wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Sidecar Racer said:

 

I think Honda had a say in that too .

 

After their fractious time together at McLaren, the Japanese manufacturer blocked Alonso from driving an Indycar with one of its engines in it, so are hardly likely to welcome him into an F1 car fitted with one.

As good a driver as Alonso is, I do believe he was toxic within teams Ferrari don't need that again and Red Bull can have their pick of top drivers and rookies as it is obvious they are back on the rise and Honda are coming good.  I think this talk is coming from his marketing team not within F1.

 

Not sure how Vettel going back  to Red Bull would benefit either party but for sure he experienced more highs with RB than Ferrari, I doubt the flying Dutchman would expect anything less than priority and why should he, so Vettel will be a wingman unless LH retires and Mercedes have a seat - they would dearly love another German champion I would guess but it depends if Vettel has enough passion left to wait out a seat.

Edited September 9, 2019 by woodenhead

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎01‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 11:39, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

With less detail than njee20, I reckon 2019's leading feature is a three and a half way title fight for driver and constructors: Hamilton/Merc, Leclerc/Fer, (Verstappen/RB or Ricciardo/Ren) the likely result. Vettel retires at end of season,

When I posted that, it was after reading a 2018 season analysis, in which was assembled evidence showing Vettel's declining ability, as far as this can be assessed from the available race data. In short the Ferrari had been good enough in 2018 (and 2017) that Mercedes should have had neck and neck competition from Ferrari, with the end result coming down to a little good fortune for one of the teams.

 

Leclerc looked like a fast learner, from the way he did well in his first F1 season in far from competitive equipment. Has clearly 'played himself in' on the Ferrari now. Provided that it is mechanically strong enough, he should reel in Verstappen, and may well catch Bottas.

 

Come 2020, Merc probably have to decide on a lead driver for the season.

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

When I posted that, it was after reading a 2018 season analysis, in which was assembled evidence showing Vettel's declining ability, as far as this can be assessed from the available race data. In short the Ferrari had been good enough in 2018 (and 2017) that Mercedes should have had neck and neck competition from Ferrari, with the end result coming down to a little good fortune for one of the teams.

 

Leclerc looked like a fast learner, from the way he did well in his first F1 season in far from competitive equipment. Has clearly 'played himself in' on the Ferrari now. Provided that it is mechanically strong enough, he should reel in Verstappen, and may well catch Bottas.

 

Come 2020, Merc probably have to decide on a lead driver for the season.

i think early season Ferrari just did what they thought was correct, prioritise SV over LeClerc as he was the rookie.

 

Probably quietly they have shifted focus as LeClerc has provided the evidence he is the future and now he is clearly in the driving seat.  SV is still a world champion and they are showing respect to that by not making any public declarations, it is up to SV to bring himself back up and is probably not under immediate pressure to do so from within the team as they have their new star.  If anything not having two drivers competing at the same level suits them, it removes the political issue of whom to favour, it is quite obvious now for the rest of the season it is LeClerc and they can start over on 2020 with either the same team or bring in a new number two.

[57xx]

12 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

When LeClerc missed a corner, the small run-off area he took was slower than staying on track, which resulted in Hamilton closing right up. The off-track route should have been slower & therefore punishment enough. If it wasn't then the run off area should have been modified to make it slower.

This allowed Hamilton to close until he got squeezed off the track. As they approached the corner, I knew this was going to happen. Either this was ok...or it wasn't. It was Hamilton's best opportunity to pass so a black/white flag was meaningless.

 

You have the incidents back to front. Hamilton had already been squeezed off the track and ItisI given the chocolate teapot flag on lap 24. The corner cutting was on lap 36, after which he did the hard, late door slam on Hamilton on the high speed Curva Grande.

Edited September 9, 2019 by 57xx

[57xx]

In other news, Haas gracefully give Rich Energy the boot.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.haas-part-ways-with-title-sponsors.2prgGDi2hL6JTYo1OnkLvY.html

[Jol Wilkinson]

9 hours ago, njee20 said:

Why do you always write SB for Vettel? I assumed at first it was a typo, but it's consistent. Am I missing something?

 

Yep, sets a bit of a precedent too (and Leclerc argued that Max in Austria set the precedent he followed), so that in future Lewis can claim "well I left more space than Charles did in Monza". It makes the stewards jobs harder down the line, and blurs the line between 'applying the rules' and 'doing so consistently'. 

If anything I thought his late move to block after the first chicane on the second 'incident' was worse than running Lewis wide into the second chicane. It was abrupt and late.

 

9 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I feel there's evidence that while the win is very clearly 'the thing', there's a sufficient value in being world champion to make him realistic about whether to go for it, or to settle for a high points finish.

Who is this SB? Have I missed a team imposed surname change to Barrichello to make it clear 'now rear gunner'.

Mea culpa. It's a typo, V and B being adjacent on my keyboard.

[Jol Wilkinson]

8 hours ago, woodenhead said:

 

 

I think Toto recognised  the victory belonged to LeClerc, he had the quicker car where it mattered, had it been the other way around we would be arguing that LH shouldn't have been penalised.  He also knew second and third was a massive haul of points for the Mercedes team and with LH wrecking his tyres in pursuit of getting into first he also knew that at some point LH was going to have to come in for tyres and would end up third.  LH was never going to win, his only chance was the undercut and it didn't work, once he spent too much time behind LeClerc on the track it was going to be Bottas who benefitted which he did.

 

LH had run off space which he had enough time to use, LeClerc cut the chicane once as he locked up, again he was in the lead and wasn't under pressure of being overtaken at that very point.

 

It's time the stewards did back off a little and use warnings rather than simply apply penalties, it gives the drivers more freedom again to defend - the excitement of motor racing not only comes from the overtaking but also the ability to defend.

Warnings are only effective if they are followed up as and when required.The also carry the implication of "one free pass". Given the potential of a small misdemeanour becoming a big one if it goes wrong, having a system that could be seen as encouraging a driver to take a risk in a dangerous sport is totally wrong.

[Pete the Elaner]

9 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Warnings are only effective if they are followed up as and when required.The also carry the implication of "one free pass". Given the potential of a small misdemeanour becoming a big one if it goes wrong, having a system that could be seen as encouraging a driver to take a risk in a dangerous sport is totally wrong.

I completely agree with that, but...

 

The stewards have set themselves a precedent of being lenient. When Verstappen edged LeClerc off the track in Austria, LeClerc's reaction was "If that is acceptable, then I will do it too", so that is exactly what he did in Monza.

They have now made life difficult for themselves because they need to be consistent with the leniency they have already shown.

So is LeClerc on a warning for the rest of the season? If so, Bottas could squeeze him in the next but one race & LeClerc is not able to respond.

 

I completely disagree with woodenhead. I don't like to see penalties applied for this & that, but the onus is on the drivers & teams to not break the rules, not on the stewards to let them get away with more.

The problem is their inconsistency. "It is ok to go off the track here but if you make a pass in doing so, then you get a penalty". Albon left the track after a pass but only because he took a faster line which did not allow him to stay on the track. Penalty deserved....but after the penalty, he stayed in front of whoever it was (Magnussen)? If he had not exceeded the limit, would he have got past at all? Maybe not, so the penalty was insufficient.

Drivers (& teams) continually push the limits of what they can get away with. If they knew the limits were rigidly adhered to, they would very quickly stop breaking them.

 

Kimi was penalised for wrong tyres. This rule is to promote better racing. Should you make an concession because he crashed his car & ends up starting from the pit lane? If so, then what other concessions would you make?

Vettel ruined Stroll's race by re-entering the track when he did, causing damage & also an unsafe re-entry penalty for Stroll when he would not have been off the track in the first place.

Stroll then made Gasly swerve. Gasly almost got his race ruined by getting stuck in a gravel trap.

In these 2 cases, I don't think the cockpit design allowed them to see what was coming, but they still unfairly compromised others' races.

[Oldddudders]

What we will never be told, of course, is what pressure the stewards feel from that shower of scum at Liberty, who want to monetise F1, which means bashing and crashing more, not less. 

[njee20]

We’ve done this before, but that’s an extension of the problem with rigid enforcement of the limits. I like to see drivers having a go, and sometimes when things don’t work out there may be breaches of track limits. Monaco is torturously dull because no one can pass. If you rigidly enforce the rules and penalise every single transgression you kill racing because the risk of trying outweighs the potential reward. Applying Pete’s previous suggestion that every time you exceed track limits you get a penalty then Vettel would have had a penalty for spinning off the track, Stroll gets one too, as does Gasly for going into the gravel. Then do you also get penalties for the unsafe rejoining? That’s not good racing at all.

 

I do want consistency though. Albon’s quali lap was disallowed for exceeding track limits at Parabollica, yet Vettel’s wasn’t. Leclerc (no capital C, it’s not “the Clerc”) got away with too much IMO, but the consistent link there is the prancing horse, and as Ian has observed there’s a genuine pressure to be lenient toward one team, which is insanity, and frankly tantamount to cheating.

[Hobby]

You could always have any part of the circuit that isn't the track (i.e. outside the white lines) as a surface (such as gravel) that would cost the transgressor time rather than allowing them to make up time, that may concentrate a few drivers' minds!

Edited September 10, 2019 by Hobby

[Oldddudders]

9 minutes ago, Hobby said:

You could always have any part of the circuit that isn't the track (i.e. outside the white lines) as a surface (such as gravel) that would cost the transgressor time rather than allowing them to make up time, that may concentrate a few drivers' minds!

More than one driver has pointed out that the wide run-off areas on the newer circuits do reduce the risks when drivers err. Great for helping get all 20 cars to the finish, but perhaps too forgiving at what likes to call itself the pinnacle of motor-sport.

[Pete the Elaner]

17 minutes ago, njee20 said:

Applying Pete’s previous suggestion that every time you exceed track limits you get a penalty then Vettel would have had a penalty for spinning off the track, Stroll gets one too, as does Gasly for going into the gravel. Then do you also get penalties for the unsafe rejoining? That’s not good racing at all.

Try to have a less rigid view of penalty.

 

It may be easier to explain to split these into 2 categories: natural & steward penalties.

Anything that makes the sector 2 or more seconds longer is a 'natural' penalty, so a spin, excursion through a gravel trap will do this. No steward penalty required.

This will make the sector slower. If it is not 2 seconds slower than on the previous full speed lap, then a steward penalty should be applied.

The already make an exception when a driver is forced off the track. I see no reason to change this.

 

This would stop the scenario such as in Canada where the 2nd place driver (in that case Hamilton) pressures the leader (Vettel) into a mistake but he cuts a corner & emerge still in the lead. Hamilton was pushing for lap after lap, pressuring Vettel into an error. He was following as closely as possible & when the mistake was finally made....he was still behind. He worked hard to force that mistake but even though he was following as closely as possible, he could not benefit from it. For me, this was a massive anti-climax.

It was an unsafe re-entry which Vettel was penalised for, not for making the mistake.

 

Does anyone remember an incident several years ago where Alonso (then a Ferrari driver) blasted out of the pits (it was a straight pit exit) just as someone was driving around the curve in front of him? He just drove blatantly around them with all 4 wheels on the grass "to avoid a collision" & got away with it. It was one of the most ridiculous things I have seen.

 

Monaco is a poor example. It is not so much the barriers which are to blame for the lack of passing but its narrow, twisty nature.

[njee20]

Just now, Pete the Elaner said:

Try to have a less rigid view of penalty.

 

It may be easier to explain to split these into 2 categories: natural & steward penalties.

Anything that makes the sector 2 or more seconds longer is a 'natural' penalty, so a spin, excursion through a gravel trap will do this. No steward penalty required.

This will make the sector slower. If it is not 2 seconds slower than on the previous full speed lap, then a steward penalty should be applied.

The already make an exception when a driver is forced off the track. I see no reason to change this.

You championed exactly what I said some pages ago (my apologies if it wasn't you), and at the time it seemed absurd! Your suggestion was that any trip beyond track limits deserved a penalty.

 

I'm not sure you can add in random sector time deltas to try and establish whether a penalty is due. The problem remains that there will always be a degree of subjectivity, and trying to be overly objective will probably ruin the racing further.

[Pete the Elaner]

10 minutes ago, Hobby said:

You could always have any part of the circuit that isn't the track (i.e. outside the white lines) as a surface (such as gravel) that would cost the transgressor time rather than allowing them to make up time, that may concentrate a few drivers' minds!

Yes & no.

I agree with Olddudders on this.

 

In principle, yes, it would make going off self-penalising.

But in order to do so, some of the 'off track' areas would need to slow the cars so much that putting one or 2 wheels on them would cause a spin. This would be dangerous so it causes something more complicated to be thought up.

[RedgateModels]

Let's not forget free practice was red flagged for gravel on the track at Monza this very year. More gravel close to the track edge means more disruption and possible hazards on track during the race ...

[57xx]

It's not difficult to do, it's a case of is the driver in control or not. Vettel's recent spins off track and his excursion in Canada were not in control. No penalty for exceeding the limit. Albon is in full control in deliberately exceeding the limits to overtake, similarly Vettel's Q3 lap, he was in control and allowed his car to exceed the limit by pushing the outside of turn 11. Penalty.

[Pete the Elaner]

Just now, njee20 said:

You championed exactly what I said some pages ago (my apologies if it wasn't you), and at the time it seemed absurd! Your suggestion was that any trip beyond track limits deserved a penalty.

 

I'm not sure you can add in random sector time deltas to try and establish whether a penalty is due. The problem remains that there will always be a degree of subjectivity, and trying to be overly objective will probably ruin the racing further.

Yes, any trip off track does deserve a penalty (except being forced off by another driver), but I have always thought of penalties in 2 different ways like this with some which self-penalise in the first place. It also proves that a committee is required to balance anything like this just to iron out any loopholes.

 

As for the sector delta times, I doubt this would have been possible 20 or maybe even 10 years ago. I am sure it is now. If you watch qualy closely, drivers know immediately what is going on, even to the extent of abandoning their final lap after 2 fastest sectors if they can see that they have already secured pole.

They will have a good idea that they have gone off limits & the technology out there can confirm this by putting a warning light on their steering wheel when they have done so.

The high speed also makes them very alert as proven by Hamilton making adjustments while trying to pass Leclerc around the Kerbe Grande, so they will not miss it.