Grand Prix thread Not606 2018 Brazilian GP Chat and Predictions
- Thread starter EternalMSC
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Come on, you know they are biased in many areas, not just F1. In fairness, on the online commentary they did think initially it was a slam dunk penalty for Hamilton.
tbh considering he had just changed tyres after not doing a lap and there being rain coming, I'm a bit mystified as to why they bought him in. As to the rest, just seen it, nothing really in it imo.
I'd say the Sirotkin was a bit of both, but wtf was he doing against Kimi? He just drifted across the whole track, When you're on the straight you just hold your line and trust the guy behind
Yeah Sirotkin's comments help clarify things.
Hamilton knew nobody around him was on a hotlap, so presumed they would all build gaps in the final sector like usual. Williams didn't expect Sirotkin to make Q2 (good planning...) so had to send him out on tyres that hadn't been kept in blankets, which were 27 degrees cooler than needed. So Sirotkin had to push like mad on his outlap to build tire temp. When he comes across Hamilton, he tries to pass him so he could keep building temp. Hamilton then sees the Williams barrelling up behind him, panics and assumes Sirotkin is actually on a hotlap, and tries to move over and give him the racing line.
Completely understandable mix-up, these things happen. However that situation has only been clarified after Q3 when both have had time to talk to the press. For the FIA to not even consider investigating, not even wanting to establish those facts, is pretty damn poor. And like you say, the Kimi incident untouched too.
for me...... this is ridiculous.
hamilton deserved at least a 5 place grid penalty as he was inches for having his car and sorotkins in bits.
for me..... bottas could see all the way up the hill and seeing all 3 cars. That's less dangerous than hamilton vearing into a car at speed and forcing him way off line and to brake.
this kind of inconsistency in a rewarding for.me makes a.mockery of the sport.
I would still advokate a set of stewards for while.season and pay them to travel.
if our dear friend Charlie can then why not stewards. then let them clearly.explain thier decisions in a presser.
hamilton deserved at least a 5 place grid penalty as he was inches for having his car and sorotkins in bits.
for me..... bottas could see all the way up the hill and seeing all 3 cars. That's less dangerous than hamilton vearing into a car at speed and forcing him way off line and to brake.
this kind of inconsistency in a rewarding for.me makes a.mockery of the sport.
I would still advokate a set of stewards for while.season and pay them to travel.
if our dear friend Charlie can then why not stewards. then let them clearly.explain thier decisions in a presser.
Being a steward is a tough job. However, if they had to stand up in a press conference and justify their reasons then I feel penalties would be much fairer.
How can you totally get away with not weighing your car properly and then destroying the machine in the process. Vettel and Hamilton have gotten away with murder this season. If stewards had to justify their reasoning then they'd be more likely to stick to the letter of the law.
How can you totally get away with not weighing your car properly and then destroying the machine in the process. Vettel and Hamilton have gotten away with murder this season. If stewards had to justify their reasoning then they'd be more likely to stick to the letter of the law.
The fundamental problem is the disconnect between rules and consequent/subsequent rulings – and the public. Far too much is left for public conjecture and guesswork. There are reasons some (apparent/potential/presumed) misdemeanours are investigated whilst others are not; but the biggest problem is the lack of clarity from the public's perspective.
Unfortunately, most scenarios are unique. This means most are judged on their own merits with (unfortunately) very little concern about how such decisions will be received by the public. The problem then is how to transmit a comprehensible message to viewership which will be received as (ahem) 'consistent'.
I am not defending the action of anyone today or in general. But I will say that the problem(s) stem(s) from the fact that F1 (essentially, the FIA) is still not sufficiently concerned with public opinion about its decisions to simplify them into something palatable for its ever-more (and rightly so) critical audience.
I don't agree as I find the rulings utterly inconsistent week to week and often politically motivated... or worse yet stiff being ignored as it is championship affecting.
we have seen instances where the championships are directly impacted earlier in the season for some stewards to make a point or score one. we have had imo a weekend thus far here where as the championship has been decided it's a free for all.
hamilton is extremely lucky imo. 90% of other drivers would have been penalised all year for thst.
vettel as once again been a petulant little twat and got away virtually Scot free.
roll back 1 or 2 weeks and both are punished.
if it's a tough job why not select the best 3 and have them paid to go to each race.
given other ex drivers make it their livelihood to go do tv at the same event I can't think of any good reason why we get different stewards each week.
I cannot understand how vettel got away with being so petulant. I know what Ferrari wanted but tough. imo ferrari lean in and politics happen.
then how the he'll has hamilton got away with that. if it had been the other way round Mercedes team.would have complained and got sirovkin a 5 place grid penalty without question.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, MITO. Your reaction is consistent with many, many others. And that is actually my point: far too little attention is given to how decisions – whatever their intricacies – are received by the public.
The FIA needs to re-evaluate its position beyond law-maker, legislator, judge and (lack of) jury, to embrace and incorporate the public with a view to reducing confusion and frustration therein. In simple terms, it needs to become far more transparent if it sees F1 as the pinnacle of its own emblem.
The FIA needs to re-evaluate its position beyond law-maker, legislator, judge and (lack of) jury, to embrace and incorporate the public with a view to reducing confusion and frustration therein. In simple terms, it needs to become far more transparent if it sees F1 as the pinnacle of its own emblem.
Absolutely, at least back in the day there was an outcome of sorts. Be it a disqualification or grid-drop. Both Lewis and Seb should have been penalised yesterday, no doubt.
What's going on with Ericsson? Since he;s been in F1 he;s been a bit of a joke, the archetypal pay driver, but since he found out he was losing his seat it seems he's decided to actually perform and look like an F1 driver.
To be fair, he has had his fair share of days when he has look like a reasonable F1 driver. His consistency is very poor though.
He's a bit like a modern day de Cesaris!
Normally any weighbridge infringements result in a DSQ from that session. The way he forced his way on and off, he can count himself lucky its a slap on the wrist and a small fine (well, small for him!). The drivers are called at random to be weighed, whilst the timing was unfortunate for him it does not excuse how he reacted to the officials.
The documents relating to Vettel are confusing. There's a technical note saying he kept the engine running so they couldn't easily record a weight. It doesn't say whether they actually recorded one or not. Reading the Stewards decision, apparently they did record a weight for the car, and he did switch off the engine - he just ran roughshod over procedure.
