2016 Grand Prix of Mexico - Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, 28-30 October

[dans79]

I also find it funny that Ric supported Ver every time he made those last minute "defenses" but now that it was done on him all of a sudden it's dangerous...

That's what happens when you spend to much time in close proximity to Helmut!

[ChrisDanger]

There are some strange views being purported here.

Vettel moved accross under braking while Ricciardo was alongside. Verstappen only moves when the attacking car is still fully behind. This is a subtle but very important difference. You can't say they are identical offenses.

Also, the FIA is the governing body. They may set the rules, but they cannot and do not influence the decisions of the driver stewards. To think that Vettel got his dangerous driving penalty because he swore at the race director is ridiculous. Do you think the stewards really care? It's completely outside their job scope, and most probably isn't a punishable offence anyway. But to give some sort of disguised penalty sounds like way too childish an action from a group that's enforcing a set of rules in a highly judicial manner.

[FW17]

A Nico win in the next two races will at least make it more about his driving and less about his being the poster child for the "I'd rather be lucky than good" adage.

The sad thing is this definitely seems to be his mindset. Personally I find that mindset pathetic. In my younger years when I was a competitive athlete, I didn't just want to win, I wanted to crush my competitors.

Nico is running one new spec and one older spec engine against LH 2 new specs, which was 3 until Malaysia.

There are certain disadvantages to it and outright there is no chance of winning against LH in an open fight. Unfortunately he is being pushed into this reliability drive when it most matters.

[hemichromis]

There are some strange views being purported here.

Vettel moved accross under braking while Ricciardo was alongside. Verstappen only moves when the attacking car is still fully behind. This is a subtle but very important difference. You can't say they are identical offenses.

Also, the FIA is the governing body. They may set the rules, but they cannot and do not influence the decisions of the driver stewards. To think that Vettel got his dangerous driving penalty because he swore at the race director is ridiculous. Do you think the stewards really care? It's completely outside their job scope, and most probably isn't a punishable offence anyway. But to give some sort of disguised penalty sounds like way too childish an action from a group that's enforcing a set of rules in a highly judicial manner.

That's the way i see it also but Verstappen does chop very aggressively sometimes still causing the opponent to take evasive actions so still a sanctionable offence.

[nevill3]

Max didn't back Vettel up into Ricciardo on purpose, after an excursion onto the grass his tyres would have been very dirty and Martin Brundle has often stated that it can take a couple of laps to clean them up again.

Ricciardo rightly complained this time because he knows about the clarification and would have endeavored to abide by the new rule himself and expects a driver of Vettel's caliber to do the same.

I agree with earlier posts about deliberately "dense" point of views being expressed on a technical forum just to elicit a response is getting tedious. Informed debate is wonderful but inflammatory comments designed to create negative responses is not, I now have several posters on my ignore list but it can make following certain threads a little difficult.

[sosic2121]

There was a car that impeded NR while lapping which led to MV dive bombing NR at turn 4. That car could have backed off on the main straight but chose not to defended into the turn 1 complex and did not make it easy on the runup to turn 4.

Who was this? why wasn't he penalized? Was it Sainz?

It seems RB drivers can get away with everything these days...

Where have you been this weekend?

Both STR drivers got several 5 seconds penalties, and Verstappen got another 5 seconds penalty too, so 3 of 4 red bull drivers got penalties this weekend

Is any of those penalties undeserved?
On the other hand Verstappen crashed into rosberg at T1 because of dive bombing.
Sainz didn't get penalty when he blocked rosberg to get into position to Verstappen to divebomb rosberg.
Verstappen "pushed" Vettel into Ricciardo which then, guess what, dive bombed Vettel.

Now, if Verstappen gave that place as he should, what would be order at the end of the race?
My guess is vet, ric, ves, or maybe ric, vet, ves.
So, RB drivers played dirty and got awarded for that. again!

[iotar__]

Vettel's shouting wouldn't be a problem since Whiting deserves all the insults except for a person and a team that embraced and benefited from this system. I didn't notice complaining when he broke basic off track rules +6 times at Silverstone '14 and Charlie helped.

More than Vettel's comments I find offensive Hamilton's and Verstappen's fairytales of how they didn't gain from running out of talent moments. Especially Hamilton's, at least MV got the penalty so usual innocent and oppressed shtick has its place (still lying and one penalty less than deserved). You got away with it so how about some silence or truth: "something or someone wants me to win and not Rosberg" .

“Lewis’ start thing was very strange. I mean if that’s not gaining an advantage then I don’t know what is gaining an advantage.”
“Because where he braked there’s no way he’s going to make the corner. I was surprised afterwards that it wasn’t even looked at,” added Hulkenberg.

http://www.grandprix247.com/2016/10/31/ ... y-strange/ Bold part says it all. Every single driver in F1 knows FIA is carrying certain drivers, that's why they shout on the radio about it .

[GPR-A duplicate2]

More than Vettel's comments I find offensive Hamilton's and Verstappen's fairytales of how they didn't gain from running out of talent moments. Especially Hamilton's, at least MV got the penalty so usual innocent and oppressed shtick has its place (still lying and one penalty less than deserved). You got away with it so how about some silence or truth: "something or someone wants me to win and not Rosberg" .

I agree with you if Rosberg would have been penalised in 2014 Canada. Hell, it isn't anywhere close to intentionally causing a yellow flag in Monaco 2014.

[Andres125sx]

It seems RB drivers can get away with everything these days...

Where have you been this weekend?

Both STR drivers got several 5 seconds penalties, and Verstappen got another 5 seconds penalty too, so 3 of 4 red bull drivers got penalties this weekend

Is any of those penalties undeserved?

No but that´s irrelevant, you said they can get away with everything when 3 of them got a penalty, so basically you´re wrong, they cannot get away with everything as those 3 penalties prove

On the other hand Verstappen crashed into rosberg at T1 because of dive bombing.
Sainz didn't get penalty when he blocked rosberg to get into position to Verstappen to divebomb rosberg.
Verstappen "pushed" Vettel into Ricciardo which then, guess what, dive bombed Vettel.

Now, if Verstappen gave that place as he should, what would be order at the end of the race?
My guess is vet, ric, ves, or maybe ric, vet, ves.
So, RB drivers played dirty and got awarded for that. again!

Verstappen crashed into rosberg fighting for position, none damaged, no reason for a penalty

Sainz was being lapped and lost a position with Button while he left space for Rosberg and Verstappen, and you want him to be penalized?

Verstappen can push (slow down) any driver while he´s leading. If that´s a problem for Vettel, pass him, you´re racing after all

Now it´s Ricciardo who divebombed Vettel? Sorry sir, it was Vettel who moved under braking, and got a penalty because of that

Some of those maneouvers are on the limit, agree, but that´s racing, when they went over the limit clearly, they got a penalty

[Andres125sx]

Just to add: I believe Vettel got his penalty for his words and not his actions. FIA knows MV backed him into Ric and forced this issue on top of it giving up the spot. If Vet had kept his mouth shut he would be in 3rd still.

So if Vet had kept his mouth shut stewarts would have ignored his movements under braking?

I don´t think so, he broke a rule FIA clarified 7 days before, as simple as that

[basti313]

Now it´s Ricciardo who divebombed Vettel? Sorry sir, it was Vettel who moved under braking, and got a penalty because of that

Well, the completely destroyed (flatspoted) tire at least suggests that he was a bit late on the brake. The same is suggested by the distance before the braking zone. The contact with Vettel did not really compromise braking to produce such a flat spot.
I do not like, that we see each weekend a driver much too late on the brake and, thus, making contact. This is bad driving and pure luck if the car survives it.

In this case Ric was lucky, that Vet did the stupid move and did not simply stay outside like Ros did it against the Ves divebomb.

Just to add: I believe Vettel got his penalty for his words and not his actions. FIA knows MV backed him into Ric and forced this issue on top of it giving up the spot. If Vet had kept his mouth shut he would be in 3rd still.

So if Vet had kept his mouth shut stewarts would have ignored his movements under braking?

I don´t think so, he broke a rule FIA clarified 7 days before, as simple as that

True. I do not see the point to discuss after the clarification by the stewards.

Regarding the team radio it is still not clear if the FIA (Todt) will take action.

[Wynters]

So possible reasons, the way I see it, not to do this:
a) There is a non-public directive allowing all drivers a free hand in turn 1.
b) Politics, handling a lead to Nico would have made the championship end less interesting (Nico would win the WDC with a 2nd in Brasil).
c) Maybe nobody challenged? Isn't it so that in a non-dangerous situation the Stewards will only look at incidents when another team complains?

I still think that the a-sec penalty was well earned there.

Interesting questions. My thoughts are:-

a) Could well be the case. How many races in a season don't have cars scampering off track at the first corner? A couple? If you say to drivers 'stay on track or else' then you are going to have many more collisions than would otherwise be the case as they won't be able to 'escape' off road. The specific scenario of 'going wide to avoid a collision/car' does not apply to Hamilton but they may well simply have a blanket rule in place as you suggest.

b) Hamilton locked a front, unlocked it, tightened his turn into the corner, ran off onto the tarmac and then lost the rears (note the steering wheel at 1:15 of the sky highlight vid) forcing him to turn 'into' the grass. The engine noise also suggests that he wasn't accelerating at any point that he was off track. After he regained the track he demonstrably waited for the pack to catch back up to him. Further, he was in no danger from Rosberg who had braked early (Verstappen braked later, braked less efficiently and still made the corner). It can be argued that Hamilton should have tried to rejoin sooner although I don't think he would have made the corner.

However, if this was the 'ideal' case then the same should apply to Rosberg. Being pushed off on the outside of a corner by a car on a better line is standard practice (e.g. see L1 T1, Canada, 2014/2015). The driver in that position can choose to hang on around the outside, and go off, or they can choose the sensible option of easing off and slotting in behind. Rosberg had full control of his car and there was space for him to rejoin without impeding other cars (slotting in behind Verstappen). However, he chose to turn sharply to the left and (appears to) accelerate over the grass, overtaking Verstappen and establishing a two car length lead.

I think the stewards made the correct decision in both cases. It's lap 1, turn 1. No action.

The only thing I was surprised about was Sainz getting a penalty. It's been established that the outside car can be pushed off during a corner and Spain established that the outside car can be pushed off on a straight so I'm not sure what he received the penalty for. But I've not seen the onboards for it and only saw one replay during the race.

c) Probably not relevant in this case.

[Andres125sx]

Now it´s Ricciardo who divebombed Vettel? Sorry sir, it was Vettel who moved under braking, and got a penalty because of that

Well, the completely destroyed (flatspoted) tire at least suggests that he was a bit late on the brake.

Or maybe he was just afraid about a collision with Vettel after his direction change under braking

The same is suggested by the distance before the braking zone.

Not neccessarily, Ricciardo has proved to be extremelly aggresive when it comes to overtaking at braking points, yet still totally under control. He´s one of the best if not the best in this IMHO

Just an example:

The contact with Vettel did not really compromise braking to produce such a flat spot.

The contact was after the flatspot

I do not like, that we see each weekend a driver much too late on the brake and, thus, making contact. This is bad driving and pure luck if the car survives it.

In this case Ric was lucky

You´re still assuming the contact was due to Ricciardo late brake, when it really was because of Vettel move under braking. Maybe Ricciardo would have gone a bit too long, but this is F1, there´re no easy overtakes. If we criticize drivers doing aggresive overtakes then what are we asking for? Borefests with no overtakings at all?

Ricciardo has proved to be VERY good overtaking under braking (his car surely play a role here). Saying this is bad driving or pure luck is so far from reality I really don´t know what to say. It is exactly the opposite, great driving, taking any chance you see in front of you (Vettel was distracted whining over the radio and left the door open) and what you´d expect from any good driver.

The only thing you could define as poor driving is that from Vettel. He was complaining over the radio about Max slowing him down to make it easy for Ricciardo to overtake him, and he leave the door open for Ricciardo? And then close the door under braking? THAT is poor driving, as Ricciardo said Vettel made a mistake not closing the door, and tried to solve it too late, under braking

[basti313]

Or maybe he was just afraid about a collision with Vettel after his direction change under braking
.
.
.
The contact was after the flatspot

How does this fit together? I do not think he had a problem with Vet moving at the point where he destroyed the tire.

The same is suggested by the distance before the braking zone.

Not neccessarily, Ricciardo has proved to be extremelly aggresive when it comes to overtaking at braking points, yet still totally under control. He´s one of the best if not the best in this IMHO

Well, I can see only two drivers doing it regularly (Ves, Ric) and three drivers who tried it once (Alo, Vet and Ros, all ending in harmful contact and/or penalty), so it may really be related to the car.
In Mexico alone we had three attempts of these divebombs (Ves on Ros twice and Ric on Vet) and none of them actually worked. Even if Vettel would have stayed on the outside, the tire would have been gone and the position would have been lost next lap. Taking one divebomb that worked perfectly as an example is a bit weak on the number of attempts where it did not work.

You´re still assuming the contact was due to Ricciardo late brake, when it really was because of Vettel move under braking.

No, absolutely not. The contact was clearly Vet's fault, while the destroyed tire was the result of the late braking.
It is quite clear, that we may follow the same line like for Alo vs. Mas last week...I think it was even you who said this...if Vet would have stayed where he was, not turned into Ric, but let him fly to the runoffs, he would have kept the position.

Maybe Ricciardo would have gone a bit too long, but this is F1, there´re no easy overtakes. If we criticize drivers doing aggresive overtakes then what are we asking for? Borefests with no overtakings at all?

Ricciardo has proved to be VERY good overtaking under braking (his car surely play a role here). Saying this is bad driving or pure luck is so far from reality I really don´t know what to say. It is exactly the opposite, great driving, taking any chance you see in front of you (Vettel was distracted whining over the radio and left the door open) and what you´d expect from any good driver.

Can you put some numbers to that? When did the divebomb really work? As stated above there is a huge number of divebombs which either did not work or with harmful contact/penalty.
For years we were talking about wheel-to-wheel racing as the thing to admire. I just do not like these attacks, during which the cars are only wheel-to-wheel in the moment when the inside car is pushing the outside car off the track.

[ChrisDanger]

At least my grandmother can watch the races with us again.