Sebastian Vettel has escaped further penalties for his clash with Lewis Hamilton at the most recent Azerbaijani Grand Prix. The German Ferrari driver met with the FIA today in Paris, and admitted full responsibility for the events that occurred.
1. Why dont brake lights go on when Hamilton brakes for the corner?
2. Was he at very low speed that he did not need to brake.
3. Drivers needed to have hands on his wheel at all times, - perhaps something that needs to be written into the rule books (unless they are heading to a crash/accident)
4. Vettel "overtook" Hamilton: Vettel was briefly ahead of him during the SC- an incorrect action on his part.
5. Vettels hands are raised after "side-swiping him" - I cannot speak for Vettel, but I believe the car drifted to the right as he was driving with only one hand on the wheel. His actions were not justified. This would happen to road users who dont look ahead while driving.
6. Vettel was not spoken to by the Stewards who imposed the penalty. It was an incident between the 2 drivers, and FIA stewards needed to have spoken to both. Penalty points and 10 sec penalty can always be added at the end of the race.
All points are valid, except 1 (i think)... If you are referring to the red light at the back of the car, that is not exactly a brake light as we know it in ordinary cars. It flashes when the car is slowing down and recharging batteries or in wet races. So he could have been using brakes and the light wouldn't turn on if batteries are full - you need to see telemetry data to be sure
1. Why dont brake lights go on when Hamilton brakes for the corner?
2. Was he at very low speed that he did not need to brake.
3. Drivers needed to have hands on his wheel at all times, - perhaps something that needs to be written into the rule books (unless they are heading to a crash/accident)
4. Vettel "overtook" Hamilton: Vettel was briefly ahead of him during the SC- an incorrect action on his part.
5. Vettels hands are raised after "side-swiping him" - I cannot speak for Vettel, but I believe the car drifted to the right as he was driving with only one hand on the wheel. His actions were not justified. This would happen to road users who dont look ahead while driving.
6. Vettel was not spoken to by the Stewards who imposed the penalty. It was an incident between the 2 drivers, and FIA stewards needed to have spoken to both. Penalty points and 10 sec penalty can always be added at the end of the race.
1. F1 cars do not have a brake light. If the red light at the rear is flashing, it means that the MGU-K is active (I believe).
2. Well, he did not brake as mentioned by the FIA. He did a partial lift.
3. Agreed. In all honesty, the issues with Hamilton's headrest that forced him to pull his arm behind his head to hold the headrest in place was something I found highly dangerous. A rule like that is needed.
4. Yes, the rulebook is quite clear on that. Infact, strictly going from the book Vettel made several infractions in those few moments.
5. That's currently under debate. The FIA did mention he steered into Hamilton. It's always possible he unconciously pulled the steering wheel to the right. I think it was intentional to a point he did it conciously though.
6. The equivalent to a 10 seconds stop and go penalty after the race would have been I think 30 seconds. I don't necessarily agree the stewards should have waited after the race. It would have yielded the same outcome. However, it's always possible a FIA stewards came by during the red flag to get a statement from the drivers. It will probably discussed again, whether with the 2 in private or at the drivers debrief. Just without any additional penalties.
1. Yes, They usually light up in the rain and harvesting. Ham did not "brake", so lights going on may not have happened. Perhaps, VSC would have been an option if it was any other track. How would FIA move forward on this issue. This could always be a possibility in future races when drivers want to "close the gap" under SC?
6. Agreed. A grid penalty for the next race was also a possibility.
I'm wondering if the team hadn't told ham of his headrest being loose how long it wouldve taken the FIA to catch on. Perhaps maybe he couldve from finished the race without pitting or at the very least gotten more time to pull the gap before the black and orange flag. Admittedly it does pose a danger but if they decided the risk was worth it maybe they couldve gone for it
So i'm not going to read all 28 pages here about this insane incident, but i will give my clear view on the matter;
Hamilton clearly did not do a brake test, he simply did not accelarate.
Vettel expected differently and started accelerating and thus had to brake but couldn't avoid contact.
Vettel then hotheadedly took the wrong assumption and got ferociously mad about it
Vettel then did the unthinkable, he slammed into lewis showing his anger, fully intentional or not.
now as for how to deal with this issue, there have been massive failures from Charlie Whiting and the FIA, once again only showing Charlie should resign.
the minimal amount of penalties served here should have been as following
dangerous driving - 10 second stop and go penalty ] done and dished, nothing wrong with that.
causing a collision - 5 second time penalty ] he was responsible in the fullest for contact with hamilton's rear end, this penalty was NEVER SERVED
causing a collision - 5 second time penalty ] apart from dangerous driving, he caused yet another collision when he 'dangerously drove' into lewis side.
however you put it, at the very very least, Vettel SHOULD have gotten a causing a collision penalty. he collided TWICE with hamilton, on HIS behalf, HIS cause.
even if you would argue the contact that got penalized in 'dangerous driving' was served through the given penalty, then STILL, the initial contact, was not penalized.
Vettel accidentally drove into the back of lewis. accidentaly or not, THAT on itself was worthy for a penalty.
THEN, he drove alongside him agressively waving hands WITHOUT TOUCHING THE STEERING WHEEL, which demands for the 'dangerous driving penalty'.
but THEN his dangerous driving ALSO caused a collision, which also was deserving of a penalty.
so even if the 10 second stop and go penalty was minor for the incident, there are in addition to that 2 collisions FULLY OF FAULT of Vettel that have NOT been penalized.
they SHOULD have, and atleast 5 seconds each.
for each collision, he SHOULD have had an additional penalty, which would have resulted in vettel, after serving the dangerous driving penalty, ALSO should have went another 2 times into the pits for a 5 second time penalty.
even in the very least, that means 10 seconds should have been added to his time, which would leave him atleast finishing on P6, instead of P4, if ONLY time was added, and still talking about the most minute penalty. he should have had 5 seconds atleast for SC collision, and then for the folliwing atleast anotehr 10 seconds on top of it, in ADDITION to the dangerous driving incident. HAD vettel recieved that after his initial penalty, he would have had to serve another pitstop penalty or get it added to the time. if he had gotten the pitstop, that would have been about what, 20 seconds additionally, P7 or P8. the very least.
the 5+10+served penalty would have seen him P7 either way,
and i think most people would have accepted the outcome. I personally think a DSQ would have been more in place, but still, a combination of 10 second collision penalty, 5 second collision penalty, and the 10 second stop and go penalty for dangerous driving would have been a decent fix and message to send out from such an act.
that would have seen P7, so 6 points less for seb, if it was served in a pitstop it would be 8 or 9, so 8 or 10 points less.
it would have seen Lewis also get 2 more points, perhaps even more due to less obstruction from vettel in front in this case, and perhaps even getting stroll in the end, but let's keep that one out.
then vettel would not have 153 points but 147 or 145 points or even less.
and Lewis would have had 141 points, so much closer.
it was offcourse highly unfortunate that lewis' headrest issue appeared, had that not happened, he would have had a much better result offcourse.
but in any case, in any way you put it, justice has not been served and this penalty was a laugh and just an embarassment to the FIA.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
As I watched it, I was struck by the coincidence of Hamilton having to pit and then Vettel's penalty being announced.
I think the stewards were worried about interfering with the championship race, and when it was clear that Hamilton had to pit they suddenly found the decision easy.
My respect for Vettel has grown a lot since he's shown he's not just Newey + Exhaust Blown Diffuser statistical fluke.
Vettel clear aspires to be like Schumacher. But it's clear that Schumacher would never have reacted in anger in this way (Schumacher's incidents were always about competitive aspect of bending/breaking the rules), so he has some way to mature in this regard.
It's obvious from all angles that there is no competitive advantage to drawing alongside and gesticulating, and I hope Vettel sees that if he were to remain calm he would have significantly extended his lead.
As I watched it, I was struck by the coincidence of Hamilton having to pit and then Vettel's penalty being announced.
I think the stewards were worried about interfering with the championship race, and when it was clear that Hamilton had to pit they suddenly found the decision easy.
My respect for Vettel has grown a lot since he's shown he's not just Newey + Exhaust Blown Diffuser statistical fluke.
Vettel clear aspires to be like Schumacher. But it's clear that Schumacher would never have reacted in anger in this way (Schumacher's incidents were always about competitive aspect of bending/breaking the rules), so he has some way to mature in this regard.
It's obvious from all angles that there is no competitive advantage to drawing alongside and gesticulating, and I hope Vettel sees that if he were to remain calm he would have significantly extended his lead.
I think the bolded part is certainly correct but it's a mistake by the stewards. They shouldn't be trying to 'even things up' they've got to apply penalties fairly across the board.
To be honest, I'm disappointed with how poor memory people seem to have. This wasn't the first time Hamilton does such slow and controversial SC restarts, so to categorically reject even the slightest possibility that what he did was cunning and intentional (and let's not insult his intelligence and experience, if he wants to do something like this and avoid penalty - he has the skill to do it) is baffling. There is a considerable history of Hamilton's controversial moves and this was one of them. There is also a history of Vettel outbursts and this was one of them. And both of them have been accused and penalized rightfully and wrongfully and that will not change...
Hamilton has the great capacity of provoking tense situations where he is/seems to be(most of the times) innocent. I actually say this as a compliment. He did it many times with Nico, and Nico made the mistake of playing his game. Vettel is very different from Nico but his "hotblood" reactions may cost him the championship if Lewis tries to explote those reactions, and I am sure he will do it.
As I watched it, I was struck by the coincidence of Hamilton having to pit and then Vettel's penalty being announced.
I think the stewards were worried about interfering with the championship race, and when it was clear that Hamilton had to pit they suddenly found the decision easy.
My respect for Vettel has grown a lot since he's shown he's not just Newey + Exhaust Blown Diffuser statistical fluke.
Vettel clear aspires to be like Schumacher. But it's clear that Schumacher would never have reacted in anger in this way (Schumacher's incidents were always about competitive aspect of bending/breaking the rules), so he has some way to mature in this regard.
It's obvious from all angles that there is no competitive advantage to drawing alongside and gesticulating, and I hope Vettel sees that if he were to remain calm he would have significantly extended his lead.
My I introduce some malicious thinking, line of thought here. (don't know if somebody already did) This is the first thing that I thought when I saw Vettel slamming in to Hamilton. I think he saw his nose was broken (pieces we're clearly sliding off to the front) and then decided he wanted to damage Hamilton as well in the spur of the moment. Now of course this will be rebutted (by some of you if you even take the time to reply) but this was just the first thing that shot through my mind when I saw events occur, sorry!
Vasconia, (and Vanja for that matter, the V people seem to see things very clear) I totally agree with you, I posted a similar comment a page or so back (but not as well written)
Hamilton clearly did not do a brake test, he simply did not accelarate.
In a car with such an amount of downforce/drag, not accelerating is very similar to braking.
Have you seen the onboards at that corner? You see Hamilton almost going to a standstill.
I really don't get why people, specially in the media are giving Vettel a public flogging.
Because it was only luck that stopped Hamilton's (or Vettel's) wishbones being damaged, then failing under braking at they approached a wall once the race resumed on the street circuit.
There is an almost infinite distance between 'boring corporate drone' and 'using an object to smash another driver's car during a race'. Avoiding one extreme does not mean immediately moving to the other.
Do you really think risking this happening at the end of the Baku straight (no gravel, much shorter run-off) is acceptable, let alone 'entertaining'? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFPQui9hn50
Hamilton clearly did not do a brake test, he simply did not accelarate.
In a car with such an amount of downforce/drag, not accelerating is very similar to braking.
Have you seen the onboards at that corner? You see Hamilton almost going to a standstill.
And so Vettel should have been paying attention, yes? What is it that you can't accept by the telemetry that the FiA says Hamilton did nothing different on this restart than he did on all the others? Saying there was no "brake check". Like to understand your reasoning with that.
Location: "madrid, Spain"
You should be well aware of alonso's famous hockenheim interview back in 2010. Here's a little reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVoLbUyI0YE
Alonso knows full stop the team orchestrated his win via forbidden team orders, yet is using every trick in the book dodging question after question, even though everyone knows he's flat out lying. That's because admitting anything would potentially fuel fia to pursue the matter further than they would otherwise. What's happening now with Vettel is EXACTLY the same story. Of course he's not going to admit a single thing and/or self-incriminate himself in the press, yet people are expecting him to do just that lol.
If you need to look at my location to then assume I´m a fanboy you must be missing any argument to keep the discusion alive
Also, how my location (Madrid, Spain) means somethin with a Vettel-Hamilton incident?
As an spaniard I should hate them both equally, as both of them have been tough Alonso´s rivals . What sort of twisted reasoning are you using to imply my location has some relevance when discussing about a Vettel-Hamilton incident?
In Spain we have a saying I´m not sure if it will make any sense when translated, but I´ll try anycase, my free translation says: "thiefs assume everyone is a thief to justify their robberies". If you assume I´m a fanboy with no reason that probably means the fanboy is you
I ain't saying you're a fanboy, just that by being Spanish your favourite driver is probably alonso, and as such should have remembered the BS he was spitting in that interview before blasting other drivers with the same treatment.
And because you seem to have some knowledge of F1 it seemed massively short-sighted not to understand why vettel's dodging questions in the press.
Ok, were not knowledgeable in F1 because we don't agree with your opinion.
Vettel asked multiple times what was dangerous about his driving, solidating the fact that he saw his actions as unworthy of a penalty, then backed up by his attitude post race interview.
Would it be a clever idea to admit that the incident was an accidental, that would be your only case with the FIA to avoid more punishment. Is Vettel's ego too big for that? Yes definitely.
. What sort of twisted reasoning are you using to imply my location has some relevance when discussing about a Vettel-Hamilton incident?
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}