Formula 1, 2019 - Page 54 - McLaren Life
 219Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
post #796 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 07:25 AM
InnerCircle
Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by eMcL View Post
New Britain — so far you have been the winning predictor (from season beginning) of McLaren WCC position. How confident are you now for the upcoming race on Renault home territory?


WCC
4 MCLAREN RENAULT 30
5 RENAULT 28
WDC
7 Carlos Sainz MCLAREN RENAULT 18
8 Daniel Ricciardo RENAULT 16
I have no idea! There hasn't been an F1 race at Paul Richard (which I believe is still owned by Ecclestone) since '90. I am incapable of forming an intelligent opinion myself and have not read a preview from anyone who knows what he or she is talking about. Come to think of it, I have not seen a preview even from someone who don't know what he's talking about. Considering that, after many years' absence, this is a return to one of the historic home countries of motor racing, this year's French Grand Prix (the clue is in "Grand Prix"!) has been given very little publicity.

More generally, I think the salient feature of the season so far has been how unremarkable it has been. Pretty much all that we have seen either has been a continuation of the second half of last year or was a predicted change. The only surprise that comes to mind is that Toro Rosso have been more competitive than expected (although one might argue that, as STR have always been Red Bull's B team, the surprise until now had been that they were not more successful).

We have not (IIRC) discussed it here on this forum, but another interesting feature of this season has been the gradual revelation that Haas's new title sponsor, Rich Energy, is a complete shitshow, either one of the worst-managed business ventures in recorded history or simply a tax evasion/money laundering scam, fronted by a weapons-grade fool who couldn't find his ass with both hands. It's been hilarious. Two weeks from tomorrow the High Court is scheduled to inform Rich Energy of the penalties to be imposed on it. I can't wait!
New Britain is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #797 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 12:13 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Britain View Post
I have no idea! There hasn't been an F1 race at Paul Richard (which I believe is still owned by Ecclestone) since '90. I am incapable of forming an intelligent opinion myself and have not read a preview from anyone who knows what he or she is talking about. Come to think of it, I have not seen a preview even from someone who don't know what he's talking about. Considering that, after many years' absence, this is a return to one of the historic home countries of motor racing, this year's French Grand Prix (the clue is in "Grand Prix"!) has been given very little publicity.

More generally, I think the salient feature of the season so far has been how unremarkable it has been. Pretty much all that we have seen either has been a continuation of the second half of last year or was a predicted change. The only surprise that comes to mind is that Toro Rosso have been more competitive than expected (although one might argue that, as STR have always been Red Bull's B team, the surprise until now had been that they were not more successful).

We have not (IIRC) discussed it here on this forum, but another interesting feature of this season has been the gradual revelation that Haas's new title sponsor, Rich Energy, is a complete shitshow, either one of the worst-managed business ventures in recorded history or simply a tax evasion/money laundering scam, fronted by a weapons-grade fool who couldn't find his ass with both hands. It's been hilarious. Two weeks from tomorrow the High Court is scheduled to inform Rich Energy of the penalties to be imposed on it. I can't wait!
Well last year 2018 there were many race traffic problems getting to the Ricard circuit. But now I hear that Boullier is organizing the race traffic so we can expect big ‘changes’.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...p-organisation

It is interesting that Renault seem to be catching up with McLaren. There is a real chassis team management competition developing I think. And now Riccardo seems to be settling in at Renault so Sainz will have to up his game.

Yes Rich Energy source of money does not seem transparent. Looks like this may not end well. Haas may have to find another sponsor ….
eMcL is online now  
post #798 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 12:23 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,052
Interesting take on the rationale for the Vettel penalty from Road & Track ….

“In this case, the incident was formally handed to the stewards by the race director under the power of Article 38.1 of the current FIA Formula 1 sporting regulations, which itself means an inquiry into one of the competition rules laid out in Article 27 (rather poignantly labeled "Driving") of the same document. Since 2017, reviews for incidents fall under either 27.4 (concerning dangerous driving, generally covering illegal blocking maneuvers that force competitors off the track) or 27.3 (concerning track limits and how to handle circumnavigations of them). Thus, this incident in particular falls under 27.3. The relevant section reads:

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
Vettel, quite clearly, went off track, and, while his effort to rejoin could be argued to be dangerous, it was not flagged as such by the stewards. Instead, they handed out the penalty because Vettel gained a "lasting advantage" from the way he rejoined the track.

In other words, his leaving the track and rejoining itself were not problematic, nor was his act of blocking Hamilton. Instead, it was his intentional (in the eyes of the relevant officials) act of using the end of his off-track excursion to push Hamilton off the racing line and off the track. That distinction may not seem important, given that he was pushed onto another paved section and not into grass (or a wall), but it's certainly a relevant detail. The move was definitely beneficial to Vettel in a lasting way, as it essentially allowed him to retain a position, and it was definitely the direct result of his effort to rejoin the track itself. Therefore, he gained a lasting advantage rejoining the track, violating maybe the only specific written rule left in the sport's competition regulations.”

https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsp...formula-1-now/
eMcL is online now  
 
post #799 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 03:23 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,052
GPFANS
12 June 2019
by Matthew Scott
F1 drivers partly to blame for Vettel Canada penalty

Formula 1 drivers who may have been perturbed by Sebastian Vettel's costly Canadian Grand Prix penalty are partly to blame for the regulations being tweaked in ways that made it possible, according to Grand Prix Drivers' Association chairman Alexander Wurz.

Vettel had five seconds added on to his race time for causing Lewis Hamilton to brake hard as he re-entered the track after getting onto the grass between Turns 3/4.
Hamilton inherited the win as a result, to widespread opposition from Ferrari, F1 fans and media, and even some drivers on the grid.

However, Wurz says a push for 'black and white' regulations meant that Vettel's penalty was inevitable.

"We want rules for each and every thing and that's where we arrived," Wurz told BBC Sport.
"Each and everyone in the system who thinks this penalty is not justified is at fault because over the years, with all these incidents and cases, the drivers and team managers asked the FIA in the open way of discussion for clarification of what is allowed and not - down to millimetre and micrometer movements. I take part in all the drivers' meetings.
"In this whole process over the years, that is where we arrived.
"The just, rational decision of looking at a situation and making a decision based on, yes, underlying rules, but not in such fragmented, small little details, has gone.
"So it is hard to blame the FIA and the stewards for this, and this is what I don't like in the conversation - that it goes a bit personal in this whole debate.
"We are an industry that strives for the ultimate perfection, advantage or disadvantage and penalty or not penalty. So we arrive at such a situation. One struggles almost to judge one situation without having to refer to six or 10 other similar situations.
"In reality each and every situation is different because there are so many influences."
https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/4...anada-penalty/
eMcL is online now  
post #800 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 03:23 PM
InnerCircle
Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by eMcL View Post
Interesting take on the rationale for the Vettel penalty from Road & Track ….

“In this case, the incident was formally handed to the stewards by the race director under the power of Article 38.1 of the current FIA Formula 1 sporting regulations, which itself means an inquiry into one of the competition rules laid out in Article 27 (rather poignantly labeled "Driving") of the same document. Since 2017, reviews for incidents fall under either 27.4 (concerning dangerous driving, generally covering illegal blocking maneuvers that force competitors off the track) or 27.3 (concerning track limits and how to handle circumnavigations of them). Thus, this incident in particular falls under 27.3. The relevant section reads:

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
Vettel, quite clearly, went off track, and, while his effort to rejoin could be argued to be dangerous, it was not flagged as such by the stewards. Instead, they handed out the penalty because Vettel gained a "lasting advantage" from the way he rejoined the track.

In other words, his leaving the track and rejoining itself were not problematic, nor was his act of blocking Hamilton. Instead, it was his intentional (in the eyes of the relevant officials) act of using the end of his off-track excursion to push Hamilton off the racing line and off the track. That distinction may not seem important, given that he was pushed onto another paved section and not into grass (or a wall), but it's certainly a relevant detail. The move was definitely beneficial to Vettel in a lasting way, as it essentially allowed him to retain a position, and it was definitely the direct result of his effort to rejoin the track itself. Therefore, he gained a lasting advantage rejoining the track, violating maybe the only specific written rule left in the sport's competition regulations.”

https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsp...formula-1-now/
In general that is a pretty knowledgeable article, but as many people have done the writer conflates the unintentional leaving of the track with the subsequent blocking action. They were separate actions.
Assuming, as I hope everyone can agree, that Vettel left the track unintentionally, then one of two things happened subsequently:
- He did not have sufficient control of his car by the time that Hamilton neared him, in which case Vettel could not be blamed for putting his car in an unsafe position in relation to Hamilton's, or
- He did have sufficient control of his car by the time that Hamilton neared him, in which case Vettel's edging his car towards the outside was a legitimate and safe (because Vettel was in control and Hamilton was never in danger) manoeuvre on the racing line.

What the writer misapprehends is the concept that a driver may not gain a lasting advantage by virtue of having left the track and then rejoining it - e.g., by cutting an asphalt chicane. To the contrary in this case, Vettel already had an advantage, then left the track, returned to the track either safely or outside of his control, and when he resumed normal racing had lost some of the advantage that he had had before he left the track. This was not a scenario or set of circumstances that the rules were intended to penalise, and indeed a literal application of them cannot be applied to what took place.
New Britain is offline  
post #801 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 03:39 PM
InnerCircle
Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by eMcL View Post
GPFANS
12 June 2019
by Matthew Scott
F1 drivers partly to blame for Vettel Canada penalty

Formula 1 drivers who may have been perturbed by Sebastian Vettel's costly Canadian Grand Prix penalty are partly to blame for the regulations being tweaked in ways that made it possible, according to Grand Prix Drivers' Association chairman Alexander Wurz.

Vettel had five seconds added on to his race time for causing Lewis Hamilton to brake hard as he re-entered the track after getting onto the grass between Turns 3/4.
Hamilton inherited the win as a result, to widespread opposition from Ferrari, F1 fans and media, and even some drivers on the grid.

However, Wurz says a push for 'black and white' regulations meant that Vettel's penalty was inevitable.

"We want rules for each and every thing and that's where we arrived," Wurz told BBC Sport.
"Each and everyone in the system who thinks this penalty is not justified is at fault because over the years, with all these incidents and cases, the drivers and team managers asked the FIA in the open way of discussion for clarification of what is allowed and not - down to millimetre and micrometer movements. I take part in all the drivers' meetings.
"In this whole process over the years, that is where we arrived.
"The just, rational decision of looking at a situation and making a decision based on, yes, underlying rules, but not in such fragmented, small little details, has gone.
"So it is hard to blame the FIA and the stewards for this, and this is what I don't like in the conversation - that it goes a bit personal in this whole debate.
"We are an industry that strives for the ultimate perfection, advantage or disadvantage and penalty or not penalty. So we arrive at such a situation. One struggles almost to judge one situation without having to refer to six or 10 other similar situations.
"In reality each and every situation is different because there are so many influences."
https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/4...anada-penalty/
This is why Formula One needs an honest dictator who applies judgment consistently without the need to reach for legalistic parsings of regulations.

The problem for many years was that Formula One had an utterly dishonest dictator who perverted the course of justice in numerous ways. This impelled the stakeholders to try to offset that man's corruptness by composing a set of rules that could cover every possible scenario and happenstance, but unfortunately that was always going to be impossible to achieve.

Making matters worse is that the FIA has continued with its decades-old practice of how stewards are chosen. Two of the three stewards are chosen by the local member of the FIA (ASN Canada FIA; Azerbaijan Automobile Federation), and the third is a former driver but not always the same former driver. This system ensures both that two of the three stewards quite probably don't know enough to make these decisions and the third steward is usually a different person from the last race and there is no consistency.
New Britain is offline  
post #802 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 04:08 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Britain View Post
………... had lost some of the advantage that he had had before he left the track. This was not a scenario or set of circumstances that the rules were intended to penalise, and indeed a literal application of them cannot be applied to what took place.
Yeah it is debatable, Vettel “lost some of the advantage that he had had before he left the track”. He lost enough ‘advantage’, in my opinion, that Hamilton would have passed Vettel had he not been forced to brake. So a position forfeit (served on track asap) would have been a more appropriate penalty.

Will be interesting to read the FIA statement after the upcoming meeting with the Ferrari Team protesting the penalty decision.
eMcL is online now  
post #803 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 05:08 PM
isv
Owner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Britain View Post
This is why Formula One needs an honest dictator who applies judgment consistently without the need to reach for legalistic parsings of regulations.

The problem for many years was that Formula One had an utterly dishonest dictator who perverted the course of justice in numerous ways. This impelled the stakeholders to try to offset that man's corruptness by composing a set of rules that could cover every possible scenario and happenstance, but unfortunately that was always going to be impossible to achieve.


That's like saying the world is better off with a benign dictator..... Probably true but reality is that you're far far likely to have a Max Mosley type of dictator (slightly worrying thought if applied to the world tbh) than anyone honest!
isv is online now  
post #804 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 05:37 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,052
No word from McLaren F1 yet?

McLaren investigating Norris' "mystery" suspension failure

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mot...a/4462130/amp/
eMcL is online now  
post #805 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 05:57 PM
InnerCircle
Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by eMcL View Post
Yeah it is debatable, Vettel “lost some of the advantage that he had had before he left the track”. He lost enough ‘advantage’, in my opinion, that Hamilton would have passed Vettel had he not been forced to brake. So a position forfeit (served on track asap) would have been a more appropriate penalty.

Will be interesting to read the FIA statement after the upcoming meeting with the Ferrari Team protesting the penalty decision.
Yes, Vettel gained by blocking Hamilton, but Vettel did not gain by leaving and then rejoining the track. Hamilton was forced to brake, but there was no reason why Vettel was not allowed to force him to brake because at that point, after Vettel was back on the track, they were competing for the racing line.

Have the FIA ruled that Ferrari's appeal is admissable? In the past when the WMSC wanted to shaft McLaren, the team would be allowed to present its case to the WMSC but then the WMSC would rule, "The appeal is not admissable. Thank you, McLaren, you may leave now."
New Britain is offline  
post #806 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 06:01 PM
InnerCircle
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Woking
Posts: 2,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by isv View Post


That's like saying the world is better off with a benign dictator..... Probably true but reality is that you're far far likely to have a Max Mosley type of dictator (slightly worrying thought if applied to the world tbh) than anyone honest!
Of course it would.

I believe in one man, one vote.

So long as I am the one man who has the one vote....

He who asks a question looks foolish for 5 minutes. He who doesn't ask a question remains foolish forever.

PS - nothing I say should be taken seriously but I am lucky enough to live in Woking and do get to see a lot of McLarens
Random McLaren of the day.#McLaren #RMTD
Neil is offline  
post #807 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 06:10 PM
InnerCircle
Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by isv View Post


That's like saying the world is better off with a benign dictator..... Probably true but reality is that you're far far likely to have a Max Mosley type of dictator (slightly worrying thought if applied to the world tbh) than anyone honest!
Not quite. The world is better off with honest, experienced court judges. Those judges normally have many years of education and daily practice before they are allowed to preside in serious cases, unlike the majority of Formula One stewards.
There is no legitimate reason why the local FIA branch should be allowed to choose two out of three stewards for a Formula One race, and no reason why the third, "professional" judge should change from race to race. The only reason why the local branch gets to decide is that it is a perk that the FIA leadership gives to the voting members in order to keep them sweet and encourage them to vote for the incumbent candidate in the next presidential election. Why the FIA feel the need to keep changing the professional steward is anybody's guess; my guess is that they are not willing to pay a qualified person enough to ensure that he/she is committed to spending much of the year on the road at all the races.
rnixon likes this.
New Britain is offline  
post #808 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 06:37 PM
isv
Owner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Britain View Post
Not quite. The world is better off with honest, experienced court judges. Those judges normally have many years of education and daily practice before they are allowed to preside in serious cases, unlike the majority of Formula One stewards.
There is no legitimate reason why the local FIA branch should be allowed to choose two out of three stewards for a Formula One race, and no reason why the third, "professional" judge should change from race to race. The only reason why the local branch gets to decide is that it is a perk that the FIA leadership gives to the voting members in order to keep them sweet and encourage them to vote for the incumbent candidate in the next presidential election. Why the FIA feel the need to keep changing the professional steward is anybody's guess; my guess is that they are not willing to pay a qualified person enough to ensure that he/she is committed to spending much of the year on the road at all the races.
Would you rather the current system or have Max Mosley return as the one and only steward...?

But more seriously, I agree in principle with what you're saying but all I'm saying is that in practice you're simply going to end up having a Mosley type person being the person in charge if going the route of attempting to install an 'honest dictator'!
isv is online now  
post #809 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 06:55 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Britain View Post
Yes, Vettel gained by blocking Hamilton, but Vettel did not gain by leaving and then rejoining the track. Hamilton was forced to brake, but there was no reason why Vettel was not allowed to force him to brake because at that point, after Vettel was back on the track, they were competing for the racing line.

Have the FIA ruled that Ferrari's appeal is admissable? In the past when the WMSC wanted to shaft McLaren, the team would be allowed to present its case to the WMSC but then the WMSC would rule, "The appeal is not admissable. Thank you, McLaren, you may leave now."
Well if “Vettel gained by blocking Hamilton” which was as a direct result of leaving and re-entering the track at a slower speed causing Hamilton to brake. Then yes Vettel ‘gained’ and should forfeit position. The telemetry enables a determination to be made.

Yes; No word yet on the Ferrari appeal being accepted by FIA, as you say it is unlikely that an appeal will be heard. But perhaps some penalty rules could be modified as a result of this?
eMcL is online now  
post #810 of 828 Old 06-12-2019, 07:07 PM
InnerCircle
Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by isv View Post
Would you rather the current system or have Max Mosley return as the one and only steward...?

But more seriously, I agree in principle with what you're saying but all I'm saying is that in practice you're simply going to end up having a Mosley type person being the person in charge if going the route of attempting to install an 'honest dictator'!
This gets back to the problem that the Commercial Rights Holder, which cares most about putting on an entertaining show, and the regulators, who care most about preserving their sinecures and only secondarily about fair play and an entertaining show, are different parties with different agendas.

The good thing about NASCAR is that the same people are putting on the show and regulating the show. They know that without genuine competition that is seen to be fair fewer fans will attend or watch and the commercial rights' value will decline. So they make often arbitrary rulings in order to keep the racing competitive and they are equally harsh and unsympathetic to all entrants.

Ironically, until 2000 the FIA had a financial stake in the Commercial Rights, but Herr Mosley so abused the FIA's powers in order to benefit F1 at the expense of potentially competing series that the EU Competition Commissioner had to step in and force the FIA to give up that stake and make other changes.

I would not favour having a ruthless dictator running the entire FIA, but I don't see why we could not have the equivalent as a permanent chief steward, with two ex-professional drivers as full-time stewards composing the rest of the team.
New Britain is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the McLaren Life forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome