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

[Mandrake]

This is getting more and more ridiculous.....

[Stradivarius]

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).

I really don't see the significance of whether Hamilton locked a front, lost the rears or anything like that. He was still driving his car off the track, taking a shortcut and keeping the lead, while the drivers behind him braked early enough to stay on the track. In my opinion, a driver should be rewarded if he is doing a better job than another driver, and a driver should suffer if he is doing a worse job than another driver. In turn 1 on the first lap, Hamilton basically made a big mistake and was rewarded for it. That feels wrong to me.

Your thoughts on Rosberg cutting the corner fail to take into consideration that Rosberg was off the track through no fault of his own. Rosberg was clearly ahead of Verstappen before turn 1. Verstappen then braked later than Rosberg and dived up the inside of Rosberg, who was paying attention and gave Verstappen enough room on the inside at the apex. But Verstappen did not give Rosberg enough room on the outside at the exit and pushed him off the track. There is no way Rosberg can be expected to slow down and slot in behind Verstappen after this. For Hamilton the situation is different because Hamilton himself was responsible for going off the track. Hamilton was in breach of Article 27.4, Rosberg wasn't.

Finally, it doesn't matter if Hamilton slowed down afterwards as long as he kept the lead. Turn 1 was the most obvious vulnerability for Hamilton and he ended up exactly where he could have hoped to end up, despite making a big mistake into turn 1. To me, that doesn't seem right.

[Wynters]

In Mexico alone we had three attempts of these divebombs (Ves on Ros twice and Ric on Vet) and none of them actually worked.

Lap 1, turn 1. Rosberg brakes early, Verstappen brakes, locks up briefly (losing braking efficiency) but still makes the corner well enough not to lose the place to Hulkenberg in the run up to turn 4. If that's a 'Divebomb' then any car taking the inside line in a corner is 'divebombing' and the term loses any useful meaning, surely?

Totally agree about Verstappen's second effort. Madness.

I don't think it's a surprise that the tyre that suffered worst was the left front, given Ricciardo had to move to the left after he started braking in order to try and avoid Vettel. Looking at Ricciardo's initial line, he was moving from the inside towards the middle of the track. Steps on the brake. Vettel moves back. Ricciardo straightens the Red Bull and the inside wheel locks as the car's weight shifts to the right. Vettel still coming across so he has to move again, now pointing towards the inside of the corner. Lock up gets worse.

For Ricciardo, would he have locked up if Vettel hadn't moved towards him? Maybe, maybe not. Would not locking up mean he didn't over run the apex? Maybe, maybe not. He'd definitely arrive with less speed and on a wider line if he didn't lock up and didn't have to accommodate Vettel's move. Would that be sufficient? Who knows. Lot's of 'ifs' and 'buts' ... I don't think it's clear cut.

[Andres125sx]

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

How it doesn´t?

Ricciardo brake later than Vettel and go for the space Vettel left, then Vettel see him and change direction to close the door (too late), then Ricciardo block his fron tires when he see Vettel car on a colliding trayectory with his, then they collide

What part do you think does not fit togheter?

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.

Maybe, but that´s irrelevant, the fact is they can do it so it really doesn´t matter if it´s due to their skills or a better car under braking

Also, as you can see in the video, that distance you´re arguing as a proof of a divebomb is not really that big

Even if Vettel would have stayed on the outside, the tire would have been gone and the position would have been lost next lap.

No, if Vettel would have stayed on the outside Ricciardo probably would have not blocked his front brakes, but that´s playing seer, the only thing we know for sure is Vettel changed direction under braking wich is not allowed. If Ricciardo really hit the brakes too late, any reason Vettel did not let him go long and regain position as with any other too optimistic attempt?

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.

Then what´s the reason Vettel didn´t do that?

Because he didn´t think Ricciardo did brake too late, he thought Ricciardo would pass him if not closing the gap. Maybe true, maybe wrong, but that´s irrelevant as he did something illegal before we could see what would have happened

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.

Numbers? So you can play seer saying Ricciardo would not pass Vettel with that late braking, but I must put some numbers?

Anycase you´ve accepted yourself both RBR drivers have done succesfull overtakes thanks to late braking so, what else do you want me to add?

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.

But it is Vettel who pushed Ricciardo not the other way around!

Ricciardo went for an open door, that´s what racing drivers are supposed to do, aren´t they? If he did brake too late, that´s still Vettel mistake by not letting him go long and then pass him again. We see this on every single GP. Same as Massa past week, if some driver try to overtake hitting the brakes too late there´s no point closing the door, that only guarantees a crash, as we saw.


What I´m trying to say is maybe Ricciardo was too optimistic, but we´ll never know because Vettel made the wrong decision and caused the contact, so a posible mistake by Ricciardo was nullified by a certain mistake by Vettel

[Wynters]

I really don't see the significance of whether Hamilton locked a front, lost the rears or anything like that. He was still driving his car off the track, taking a shortcut and keeping the lead, while the drivers behind him braked early enough to stay on the track. In my opinion, a driver should be rewarded if he is doing a better job than another driver, and a driver should suffer if he is doing a worse job than another driver. In turn 1 on the first lap, Hamilton basically made a big mistake and was rewarded for it. That feels wrong to me.

I think how much control over the car a driver has is relevant to what choices they can make. a) Yes, he drove off the track because he locked his front brake. His mistake. b) I don't believe he had sufficient control to avoid going onto the grass. He could've rejoined earlier perhaps, at right angles to the direction of traffic, but I'm not sure that would be safe. c) Given what happened behind him, I think he would've kept the lead regardless.

He certainly wasn't punished additionally for it but I don't think having a large flat spot and risking driving over a long patch of grass is a 'reward'.

What is your view on all the midfield and tail-end runners who have missed the first corner at previous Grand Prix? For instance, the five cars that chose to leave the track at T1 last race?

Your thoughts on Rosberg cutting the corner fail to take into consideration that Rosberg was off the track through no fault of his own.

Rosberg chose to try and stay on Verstappen's outside. He could have slotted in behind him before he ran out of road. He then straightened his car in parallel to the white lines (right next to the track) and then chose not to safely rejoin behind Verstappen and, instead, chose to turn away from the track, off the tarmac, go across the grass and rejoin two car lengths in front of the car that had passed him. Each stage is a more deliberate decision than Hamilton.

To quote Article 27.4:-
"Drivers must make every reasonable effort to use the track at all times and may not deliberately leave the track without a justifiable reason." Both drivers left the track. One braked too late, one decided to hang on around the outside. Was either a deliberate decision? Did either have a justifiable reason for not staying on the track? Did either driver make a reasonable effort to stay on track?

"Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage." Once off the track, could either driver have safely rejoined earlier than he did? Did either driver gain a lasting advantage?

"At the absolute discretion of the race director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he gained by leaving the track." Did either driver give back the advantage gained?

If you honestly think that the answer to the above questions is 'Hamilton deliberately chose every outcome and Rosberg had no option in anything that he did' then I think all we can do is agree to disagree. I think both drivers made questionable decisions, I think the stewards were right not to penalise either and I think that if it had been Nasr and Palmer doing it there wouldn't even be a single post about it in this thread (see the lack of posts talking about Alonso and Sainz).

[f1316]

One thing to bear in mind in the cold light of day, is that this is a radio communication between driver and team.

If Vettel goes back to his garage and tells his engineer to tell Charlie to F off, does he get a punishment? Of course not, because the engineer wouldn't convey the message - certainly not verbatim.

Now, yes, Vettel is going to know he's going to be broadcast, but he's also driving a car at 230 mph, fending off one driver and trying to attack another, all the while feeling extremely frustrated at the rub of the green he's experiencing.

On the flip side, FOM tv makes a conscious decision to broadcast the comment, even taking the time to bleep it first. So there is a conscious decision being made by the rights holder to ensure that message - which some would see as not good for the sport's image or its drivers' as role models - gets into the public domain. They made that choice and could have chosen not to > passed to the FIA for sanctions privately.

Of course they were always bound to and of course the culpability for saying something lies with the speaker, but if we're "thinking of the children" it's worth remembering that it's not a live feed and that the broadcaster chose the show over discretion.

(Not to mention that David Coulthard makes anti-Italian, borderline racist comments all the time, when not driving a car or experiencing any particular hardship - it "all got a bit Italian" for Jarno Trulli, anyone? That's a bad role model, particularly in these dark, post brexit days).

[f1316]

NB: you also only have to have the most rudimentary lip reading skills to see footballers tell the referee the same thing on a weekly basis.

[SR71]

Can someone help me understand how Vettels move underbraking was different than the move you'd make for the apex at that point?

He left room and both cars made the apex.

[Mandrake]

How is this no moving under braking defined? Vettel decided to brake towards the corner, not following the track. As soon as he brakes, there is no change in his direction?

For the T1 Lewis incident: Where would you think he'd come back on track had he tried to not shortcut the track? In front of Rosberg and Verstappen? I doubt that, he would have needed to shave off too much speed and go a much longer way. So he certainly profited very much from not being attackable into T1 and then taking the easy way out. I'm not sure I would really push towards a penalty in lap 1......tough call to make. But the benefit he had was massive....

[hemichromis]

Vettel has written letters to Todt and Whiting and will not be penalised:

He then, again on his own initiative, sent letters to each of the FIA President Jean Todt and Charlie Whiting, in which he apologised profusely for his actions.

'He also indicated that he would likewise be contacting Max Verstappen and vowed that such an incident would never occur again.

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/ ... an-gp-rant

[Just_a_fan]

This thread is boiling down in to several versions of "driver I don't like did something I don't like and should have been punished boo hoo" or "driver I like was hard done by and it's all unfair boo hoo".

Seriously, take out the fanboy/haterboy posts and this thread would be half as long and certainly a lot more interesting.

[Kinetic]

According the James Allen, "Red Bull was told by the FIA stewards that Verstappen should give the place to Vettel – a message which Ferrari heard and relayed to its driver ."

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/11/ ... t-to-stop/

[dans79]

Seriously, take out the fanboy/haterboy posts and this thread would be half as long and certainly a lot more interesting.

I wouldn't even call it fanyboyism, its just how society thinks now thanks to all the nanny states.

[iotar__]

Vettel's letter to FIA:

I’m really, really sorry. I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

It's Whiting that should be apologising to fans that pay for this abomination of a sport.

[djos]

This is getting more and more ridiculous.....

Not really, trying swearing at the ref's in any football code and see how hard the book gets thrown at you!