Indeed. Verstappen passes Kimi off track, penalty, which given the rules is fair enough. Vettel passes Massa off track, not a peep. Rules need to apply at all times, regardless of how it affects the show.
Vettel was ahead of Massa and had a right to the line. Thats the difference between between being pushed off track and overtaking off track. I see nothing inconsistent.
Palmer was pushed off track whilst being at least alongside at Monza 2nd chicane, was given a penalty. There is massive inconsistency, am sure lots of other examples could be found.
I meant with Max and Vettel specifically. Not that there is no inconsistency at all in F1. I think they are polar opposite incidents and not worth comparing at all. Palmers might be questionable. I can't really find a great video of it. But he doesn't look anywhere near as far alongside as Vettel. Some degree of "hanging them out to dry" has been considered acceptable defending for a while.
Under close scrutiny, it may be seen that both of these examples suggest rules are being applied consistently. Räikkönen drives a Ferrari and everyone breaking the rules to beat him will be penalised. Vettel drives a Ferrari and is therefore entitled to break rules with impunity, especially as he set out to emulate his idol: Schumacher. The problem with F1 is Ferrari. Still Ferrari. It always has been. Ferrari thinks it owns* F1 and that such a position provides for special rights and conditions. Ferrari has always had a hand in making the rules. Ferrari has always had a hand in interpreting what was meant when they were written, especially when others might be so impudent as to try to their game. (Red Bull has been the most successful in this regard). Ferrari has always been paid disproportionate prize money because Ferrari made the rules which make it a rule that it can make rules which say so. Ferrari has no interest in what actually occurs at any event, so long as its drivers benefit from any incident; and that its favoured driver at any point in history (ahem) 'wins' – whereupon the means by which such result is derived will correctly be interpreted as irrelevant according to vague sub-clauses they had a hand in writing. *More than any other team, Ferrari actually do own the show. The best thing for F1 would be to kick Ferrari in the pistachios and make a whole new pizza with a little less cheese. Seriously.
I didnt have a problem with the Massa overtake and I guess nor did Massa or williams would have raised an investigation? Massa made a mistake and nearly smashed into him.
Palmer straight-lined the corner, keeping his foot in, and didn't rejoin the track at the allocated place, which was about 50-100 yards further. Verstappen last week had the door closed and skipped the corner to make the pass, Massa corrected some over-steer (or was it crowding?) and bumped Vettel a few inches over the line on the outside and on a straight. Karun ad the idea, a few feet of grass before the run-offs.
We put grass on the run offs and all that changes is we're sat here debating "how comes Massa got a Penalty for putting Vettel on the grass but Kimi got nothing!"
It’s cause and effect though, if you clear up one area of advantage then it’s easier to police other rules. I’m still of the view that the 1 car width rule and crowding rule are too ambiguous and it becomes conjecture as to what point It is enforceable. The simpler it is the easier it is to understand and police, and subsequently the fairer and more consistent it will become for competitors. It should simply be 1 move in defence and stay within the confines of the track. The Max move on Seb, the Seb move on Massa and the Bottas defence on Ricc are all examples of the outside car being able to do things. 1. Risk more on entry by carrying more speed because there is little or no disadvantage if you balls it up and go off track. 2. If the inside car forces you outside the confines of the track claim to have been crowded and not given the 1 car width. Both of those are to the advantage of the individual on the outside which is just not right. Any driver in any formula will tell you that if you get caught on the outside you deserve what you get. Any driver coach will teach you to never position your car to the outside and the high ground is the inside line. The kerbs between T1 and T2 were pointless in a way because they were aimed at preventing a car just cutting 100 meters of track courtesy of Lewis. If you look at the Max overtake he is effectively 1 cm (via the thickness of his rear wheel, the front wheel goes outside the track) inside the track limits, but the kerbs are a further few feet away? The whole intent of the deterent is to prevent advantages (especially on holding an inside line for the next corner) and that by definition allowed one. What would have happened if He had drifted 1 cm wider? He still would have made the move stick, the contact behind would have still happened and we would have had the stewards hiding behind a multitude of rules for 30 laps before probably making the wrong decision. That is the problem and that will never be fixed with an incapable Charlie, a not fit for purpose rule book, an appeals process that has to stand up in a court and 24 drivers interpreting the 50 shades of grey differently.
I can’t copy the driver briefing from Mexico, it’s on the sky f1 page under video. It’s worth a watch because you can see the confusion in the drivers, and the lack of conviction and direction from Charlie. I think Ricc is right on the Astro which Charlie contradicts himself on. I think Lewis is right about Seb. I think Seb has made a common sense suggestion on kerbs which is quite frankly F11ckin obvious.
Huh? I have already watch it but.... why dont they want it shown on not606?? I liked Sebs reaction to Lewis
I think the rule should be changed to let the driver back past. The FIA should get their act together and make a faster decision on these. The drivers were going 'Tell charlie this and tell charlie that' But Charlie was taking a leisurely stroll down the pit lane from the starting block.
Not sure when it changed, I remember Button getting a drive through in Australia 2011 for over-taking Massa off track and Ferrari immediately switching him with Alonso so Button couldn't give it back without letting both through, I think they pitted him after that for the double 'screw you'.
The F2 feature race was a great example - not sure who the drivers were. The leading driver defended and was always in front, but compromised his entry and locked a front brake resulting in him going straight across the same corner. The attacking driver stayed on the racing line but was never in a position to realistically overtake but was deliberately making the other driver compromise his line - I believe us casual fans refer to that as race craft. Anyway, when the leading driver returned to the track (still in front) he slowed and let the attacking driver past. He never lost position and was never disadvantaged for leaving the track. However, he knew that he had retained his place unfairly and if he didn't concede position he would have a penalty - imme3datley confirmed by the commentators - especially that crazy Italian one that sounds like Frankie Detori on speed. We have been discussing the poor steward standards for a very long time now, but all the junior formulas generally get it right. However F1 creates rule to artificially allow a driver to "entitled space" when behind, allow drivers to leave a track and either pass or retain position and then argue for 30 laps about the technicalities of the big bang theory. I can recall two blatant situations that were similar to the F2 one - I have chosen these because the WDC related. Rosberg in the final turn at Canada and Lewis at T1 in Mexico in 2016, both were leading both went straight on and both retained position they would not have done if the track limits were protected correctly. Neither considered to yield position, neither were given a retrospective penalty and F1 deemed it acceptable. So why do junior formulas race to different rules?
There was an outcry I think at Silverstone when Kubica(?) got a penalty as he overtook someone by cutting a corner, the driver he overtook retired about 2 laps later so he couldn't give the place back and then got a far harsher drive through penalty which everyone said was unfair has he never got the opportunity to give the place back. It's a rule that the teams and drivers should be able to police themselves, but as they're all cheating bastards if they think they can gain an advantage, whinge over the radio about some nonsense about being pushed off, and get away with it they will.
It’s cause and affect though, if you can’t leave the track (Suzuka for example) it wouldn’t need to be policed.
