same level of dislike as Vettel.

Aye, he does seem to be this generation’s Mansell

OTOH I do appreciate this forums love of Hamilton: “penalty was unfair” “penalty was harsh” meanwhile “Hamilton doesn’t defend penalty to stewards” 🙂

Interesting that LeClerc did pretty much the same manoeuvre on Norris on the opening laps, there doesn’t seem to be the same level of vitriol here for that.

Quite and I think I saw Norris do it to Ricciardo too.

I can’t quite recall the detail of those (links to clips?) but perhaps they were a quite different scenario: moving to protect a position against someone overtaking; ie forcing them to use the very edge of the track in order to get the move done. That’s just defending hard—though of course there’s a line you can cross (one which Rosberg crossed emphatically in Spain by forcing Hamilton right off the track.) Leclerc did the opposite of what Rosberg did: once Seb committed to the outside, Leclerc progressively gave him more space.

Vettel’s move was quite different: he was the one overtaking. In this scenario it’s entirely right and proper for the person being overtaken to hold their line (and note that Leclerc progressively gave Vettel *more* space than that) and it’s not “overtaking hard” to try to force someone across the track if you’re the one coming from behind and you’re not ahead, it’s just stupid.

Even if Vettel *had* managed to get ahead he might have been wary of what happened to Montoya at the same place years ago when Jos Verstappen lined back up behind him. But then, I suppose he’d be fine—after all, Leclerc’s not the sort of person who’s careless enough to just pile into the back of someone under braking.

OTOH I do appreciate this forums love of Hamilton: “penalty was unfair” “penalty was harsh” meanwhile “Hamilton doesn’t defend penalty to stewards”

Yes, it’s pretty hilarious that LH admitted that he screwed up but the fanbois won’t accept his guilty plea.

Im a LH fan and i agree it was his fault as he was coming from behind, the fact that Lewis admitted it straight away, apologised to Albon on camera and in person and saved the stewards some time on investigating and interviewing both drivers makes me like Lewis even more

Bez

I can’t quite recall the detail of those (links to clips?)

I linked these already and the forum ate them. 2 mins.

1:10 seconds for charles/norris
1:26 for norris/ricciardo
https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2019/11/ONBOARD__Leclerc__Ricciardo_and_Norris%27s_three-way_first_lap_battle.html

I will say, both of those moves looked a lot worse on the broadcast coverage compared to the onboard. I can’t find a link for the moment though.

Better link Charles/norris 00:37 in this and 1:12 onwards for norris/ricciardo

Thanks.

I think in the Leclerc move, it looks like he’s eyed a potential dive up the inside of the Alfa as the cars ahead stack up in the braking zone, and then as soon as he starts it he realises Norris is there and backs out. May not be the true explanation, but subscribers to Hanlon’s Razor can run with it.

The Norris vs Ricciardo move is what I was describing above: Ricciardo is still behind and Norris is moving to defend his line. It’s a pretty strong move, but it’s not in the braking area and it’s not a second change of direction, so I’d definitely call it on the hard racing side of the fence.

I watched both of those clips a few times before reading on and I pretty much agree with Bez in what I was thinking.
It does look like LeClerc is looking to dive down the inside of the Alfa, but it also looks like it’s from an optimistically long way back. Maybe he could see a closing speed differential that we can’t.
As for Norris – that’s just defending. A single move to the left while still infront to defend the inside line. Hard but fair.

And Vettel (full disclosure – I don’t like Vettel) – that was just bullying tactics, trying to push Lerclerc tol far to the inside so he’d have to brake earlier for a tighter line while Vettel returns to the right to take the fastest line. Bit of a shame that Leclerc didn’t just lose an endplate in to Vettels tyre and then be able to carry on.
But then if that had happened we wouldn’t have had Sainz on the podium (kind of) so it all worked out well for my preferences that way.

I think also that the outcome of the collision for both cars was a surprising factor, I’ve seen much worse “friendly tyre rubbing” that hasn’t ended with both cars literally falling to bits. I’d bet Vettel’s face was a picture when he realised what he’d managed to achieve.

pocpoc

Subscriber

I watched both of those clips a few times before reading on and I pretty much agree with Bez in what I was thinking.
It does look like LeClerc is looking to dive down the inside of the Alfa, but it also looks like it’s from an optimistically long way back. Maybe he could see a closing speed differential that we can’t.
As for Norris – that’s just defending. A single move to the left while still infront to defend the inside line. Hard but fair.

And Vettel (full disclosure – I don’t like Vettel) – that was just bullying tactics, trying to push Lerclerc tol far to the inside so he’d have to brake earlier for a tighter line while Vettel returns to the right to take the fastest line. Bit of a shame that Leclerc didn’t just lose an endplate in to Vettels tyre and then be able to carry on.
But then if that had happened we wouldn’t have had Sainz on the podium (kind of) so it all worked out well for my preferences that way.

The point is, in all three cases, and many others, one car has to move to avoid another otherwise there is a crash.

Charles chose to stand his ground, fair enough but he does therefore shoulder some responsibility.

BTW The stewards agree with the above point but go further to say that no driver was ‘predominately at fault’. That I cannot agree with.

Source https://www.fia.com/file/108921/download/29979

That I cannot agree with.

Both drivers could’ve prevented the accident before it happened.  You can claim that LeClerc didn’t have to, but he could’ve moved as easily as Vettel They both chose not to. Stewards look at two things; cause and consequence. There’s no blame to assign as they they effectively ended both their own races through their own behaviour.

What other conclusion would be a fair one?

What other conclusion would be a fair one?

I don’t understand how it can be construed to be anything other than predominately Vettel’s fault therefore he should receive a grid drop next race and/or points on his superlicence.

As a fan, the apparent inconsistency on penalties is really frustrating.

I don’t understand how it can be construed to be anything other than predominately Vettel’s fault

Did you not see the Grid interview with Vettels biggest fan and Hamilton’s biggest detractor being interviewed by Martin Bundle?  a certain Mr B Ecclestone….

I don’t understand how it can be construed to be anything other than predominately Vettel’s fault

Because either driver could’ve prevented the whole thing by moving out of the way. Both made a decision not to. The end point of that decision making by both drivers was that they both ended up with broken cars. That seems like a fair outcome. I’d imagine that both drivers are probably privately pleased about that. Social Media has LeClarc as the injured party, and his stock has risen and the team are probably rallying around somewhat. Vettel has demonstrated to his team mate that he will drive into him. The same tactic that Senna employed on Prost to great effect. Leclerc now knows that he is to be careful around his team mate.

Vettel now knows that he can’t bully Leclerc out of the way.

I don’t buy the “Leclerc could have prevented it by moving out of the way” argument, it’s superficially true in a factual sense but if that’s your basis for adjudication then your idea of racing is completely broken.

Think back to plenty of other incidents, such as Schumacher once violently swiping all the way across the track and very, very nearly forcing Barrichello into the pit wall in Hungary at nigh on 200mph. Inches from what could easily have been a horrific crash, and if it had been, you’d say “well, partly Barrichello’s fault, he could have avoided the collision by hitting the brakes”…? Come on.

You can’t pick apart racing collisions in the same way that you can a road crash. When racing you have to rely on certain predictable behaviours from others, otherwise you’re screwed. If you pre-emptively compromise your own line every time anyone comes near you, just to give them more space, you’re not a racing driver, you wouldn’t even win an office night out at an indoor track. You have to be able to drive at full throttle right behind someone without getting the blame if they suddenly lift off halfway down the straight; you have to be able to pass without someone pushing you into the pit wall. Sure, some drivers can be a bit fast and loose with some of these trust issues, but when they are it’s clear whose fault it is.

Even if you’re saying that Leclerc could have avoided it by steering away from Vettel: that’s what he did! But Vettel kept coming.

Balls is this Leclerc’s fault, it’s Vettel’s entirely. Either he misjudged what was a straight line, or he misjudged whether he’d got his car in front of Leclerc’s, or he just had the red mist and did something stupid. Whichever it is, it’s his fault and his alone.

Interesting that LeClerc did pretty much the same manoeuvre on Norris on the opening laps, there doesn’t seem to be the same level of vitriol here for that

LeClerc was doing some very late defending against Bottas into turn one.

his move against Norris was pretty aggressive, too. Had Norris not reacted as well they’d have both been out or the race.

He’s shaping up to be a pretty aggressive driver. Just as well if he is going to compete with Max in the years to come.

as for Lewis not protesting the stewards’ verdict, it would have been unsportsmanlike to do so. He prides himself on being a descent person. If it were the last race of the season and he needed the points I’m in no doubt that he’d have raised a protest. it was a slightly ambitious  move.

id have like to have seen max and Lewis pit for tyres at the same time under the first safety car. That said, max would have been out the pits 1.5 seconds sooner, but that would have been good viewing.

but if that’s your basis for adjudication then your idea of racing is completely broken.

I don’t think for minute that either driver expected that incident to end as it did, do you? Plenty of team mates have rubbed wheels, and I think that’s what Vettel was trying to do, I’d imagine it’s what’s Leclec was expecting to happen as well. They both could’ve prevented it. They both chose not to

If you pre-emptively compromise your own line every time anyone comes near you, just to give them more space, you’re not a racing driver

The stewards will decide on the outcome of incidents based on the premise agreed by all the racing driver that they should be allowed to race, this is what was happening here. LeClerc is Ferrari’s second driver, it’s not unreasonable if you’re Vettel, to lean on him in the expectation that he’ll give way, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that LeClerc thought, balls to you I’m not giving way…Hence racing incident

EDIT: I do think however, that the fact that they are teammates has a large bearing on the decision making of the stewards.

Balls is this Leclerc’s fault, it’s Vettel’s entirely.

And yet the stewards who are trained, and have to pass an exam, and are often senior Marshalls and Ex Racing drivers, agree with my view and not yours.

LeClerc is Ferrari’s second driver, it’s not unreasonable if you’re Vettel, to lean on him in the expectation that he’ll give way

That’s nothing to do with the rules of racing, that’s a purely contractual matter, and a hypothetical one at that.

And yet the stewards who are trained, and have to pass an exam, and are often senior Marshalls and Ex Racing drivers, agree with my view and not yours.

Sure, I get that 🙂 But it’s not as if there’s no precedent for (a) taking a more lenient view where the driver who might at fault has suffered his own punishment (as you said yourself earlier regarding cause and consequence) or (b) inconsistency (Monza this year gave us some interesting stewarding decisions).

I get your point about comparing the move to Senna establishing his resolve in Prost’s eyes, but it’s not the same. Senna was the incoming threat, not the established champion, let alone one who seems desperate to turn around a long sequence of driving errors. And Vettel hasn’t handled this (at least in public) in the bullish way that Senna would. Again Suzuka 1990 is the purest example of this: Senna deliberately crashed, knew it was wrong to do it despite his reasons for doing so, and came out with the gloves off in interviews afterwards. Vettel just looked confused and non-committal, hardly sending a statement of intent.

Balls is this Leclerc’s fault, it’s Vettel’s entirely

And yet the stewards who are trained, and have to pass an exam, and are often senior Marshalls and Ex Racing drivers, agree with my view and not yours.

No view one way or t’other but one aspect you might be overlooking ……. Politics?

NickC, pretty sure we can all agree stewards and referees can get decisions wrong even after watching multiple replays.
I actually liked Vettel prior to this season. And I’m also no Hamilton fanbois. Like LAT says above, would have been interesting to see Hamilton’s response if he needed the points.

That’s nothing to do with the rules of racing, that’s a purely contractual matter, and a hypothetical one at that.

They literally changed the rules a few years ago to make the team orders decisions more open. Ferrari at the start of the season stated publicly that Vettel is (and remains) their no1 driver, it’s not hypothetical, and these types of contractual agreements have always had a bearing on F1 racing since the 1950’s. Both Vettel and LeClerc understand their positions in the team.  Team leaders have given the 2nd driver a “hug” from time to time to remind them of their positions, 2nd drivers spending time cultivating their side of the garage and giving the no1 driver a hard time is also part of the deal. To mis-quote Brian’s Mum, they’ve both been very naughty boys

Vettel just looked confused and non-committal

Again, I don’t think for a minute that Vettel thought it would end with both cars falling to bits.

I actually liked Vettel prior to this season

He’s a really good racing driver, and when he’s got the whole team behind him, he’s unstoppable, but he’s also I think, a bit fragile, LeClerc is exposing his weaknesses very effectively.

but one aspect you might be overlooking ……. Politics?

I think the stewards would’ve taken a wholly different view if Vettel had tried that on a driver from a different team. I think the stewards have, in this case, quite rightly, stepped back and effectively handed the problem back to Ferrari and said “Here, you sort your drivers out”

NickC, not think the Stewards also has to think about Vettels penalty points and the noise/politics involved with giving him a ban?
Isn’t he 3 points away from an automatic ban? Wonder what the fall out would have been if a former world champion Ferrari driver was banned from racing at Abu Dhabi?
I know it’s a bit conspiratorial, but just made me think when I heard it mentioned on the radio.

I think the stewards would’ve taken a wholly different view if Vettel had tried that on a driver from a different team. I think the stewards have stepped back and effectively handed the problem back to Ferrari

So now you’re saying that the stewards’ decision was influenced by the fact that this was an intra-team issue and that had it not been then they’d have penalised Vettel?

You’re U-turning quicker than a number 5 Ferrari in a Monza chicane 😀

I did also make the observation in reply to you about an hour ago 😉

Yes, I think that the incident was wholly within one team influenced the stewards decision, and I think they recognised that hed it been a different driver, Vettel probably wouldn’t have tried to lean on him like he did with LeClerc. That this happened because it was these two drivers can come as a surprise to no-one surely? It’s been inevitable for the last 10 races at least.

@w00dster, do you think that would be worth it? to stop vettel driving the last race of the season. I don’t think that would achieve much would it?

It won’t have any bearing on the standings, and deny Vettel fans the chance to see him race?

I dunno, what d’you think?

Leclerc gave Vettel not one but two (two!!) car widths, was in the process of giving him even more and Vettel still managed to hit him. I reckon even Pastor Maldonado could have managed to navigate his way through that without colliding! What a joke.

Nick, my reference was in relation to Abu Dhabi and Ferrari. Ferrari World being there.
Pretty sure for Ferrari this would be one of the larger commercial weekends.
Again just being conspiratorial, I would see that Abu Dhabi is a very big occasion for both F1 and Ferrari, there’s a symbiotic relationship between the two, excluding a former world champion who drives a Ferrari from this race may not have been a very good move politically and more importantly commercially.

Sorry, but it’s 100/0 to me.

On the facts, sure. But as a principle of restorative justice, in order to make up for the many years of Ferrari dirty play, any Ferrari driver involved in an accident should be held at least partly responsible. LeClerk was driving a Ferrrari, therefore he’s partly responsible. So 100/25 for me.

Again Suzuka 1990 is the purest example of this: Senna deliberately crashed, knew it was wrong to do it despite his reasons for doing so, and came out with the gloves off in interviews afterwards.

To be fair, I think Senna thought he had right on his side, but he bullshitted and said he went for the gap for at least a year.

Yeah, we’re saying the same thing, I think. His motives for doing it were political, and he was making a huge political statement. But in order to do so he felt he had to do something which (I presume) he knew was wrong in terms of on-track racing.

The point is that, unlike Vettel who wasn’t making a statement but a mistake, he was totally committed to his statement and the act through which he made it. Which meant that when Jackie Stewart (who, like all other racers, knew perfectly well he’d done something wrong) interviewed him, he had to dig his heels in and produce the “if you see a gap and don’t go for it you’re no longer a racer” line (amusingly oft-quoted since with no recognition at all of the fact that in context it was, as you say, bullshit).

Exclusive: The FIA has seized parts of the fuel system of Ferrari, one Ferrari customer and one Non-Ferrari. A thorough investigation of the parts will be conducted in the FIA laboratories.

AMuS (in German): https://t.co/NTfLOzSWEv

— Tobi Grüner 🏁 (@tgruener) November 20, 2019

What’s the betting the non Ferrari is Red Bull?    So, F1 discovers how the Ferraris are faster, the rule book is clarified and they slow down, yet they find away around it for Brazil and get faster again.  Having discovered the mechanism, RB copy the idea with a theoretically legal twist and Max wins.

… is my conspiracy theory.

Or, Ferrari and Honda do something naughty, Sainz wins for McLaren 😂

Or, Ferrari and Honda do something naughty, Sainz wins for McLaren

And if the customer Ferrari teams were disqualified too, that would put Ricciardo and Hamilton on the podium along with Sainz, plus George Russell up to ninth.

Only one non-Ferrai.
Gasley wins