Visibility in F1 cars (Vettel rejoining track in Monza 2019)

It always used to be accepted, though, that crashing under yellows was very heavily frowned upon and would get you in trouble.

When was this? I haven't noticed in the last 30 years at least.

But Vettel did move. He was off the track (he could have reversed) and crept along the width of the track, eventually clipping Stroll.

Using the excuse of him being a racing driver and wanting to get back on track as soon as possible and that it's basically hard wired in his brain is a weeeeak excuse.

Lots of assumptions saying EVERY driver would do the same. Calling bs on that.

Like I said in my post, I am not defending Vettel's actions.

It is very easy as a fan sitting at home or trackside o say 'he should have waited' or 'he should have reversed'

You don't think other drivers in Vettel's position would do the same thing? I do, not one would have waited IMO - they just want to get going as soon as possible and not drop any more positions.

Like I said in my post, I am not defending Vettel's actions.

It is very easy as a fan sitting at home or trackside o say 'he should have waited' or 'he should have reversed'

You don't think other drivers in Vettel's position would do the same thing? I do, not one would have waited IMO - they just want to get going as soon as possible and not drop any more positions.

Edited by goldenboy, 10 September 2019 - 11:45.

Thinking about it. Vettel’s best and safest move would have been to wait until the SC was called. Then he could drive safely out of the runoff and catch up to the back of the pack. No penalties, no damage to repair and minimum time loss.

yes, quite possibly.  But to be fair you've had two days to think of that while he had to make a judgement call on the spot! 

Seb using alot of words when he could have used 2. "Poor Judgement"

It's like any maniac motorist - "I can't actually see if it's clear to overtake this car/cyclist/horse around this corner/over this blind brow, but I don't want to slow down so I'll just have to hope it's clear"

But they're all "maniacs", i.e. speeding & driving on the limit is literally the essence of the sport. If we're going to start judging these drivers on the basis of normal everyday motorist behavior & road laws, we might as well quit motor racing entirely. Vettel made a huge mistake, paid the price & that's that. When someone is paid tens of millions by Ferrari & he's sitting 4th at Ferrari's home GP whilst his teammate is leading... well it's easy to see "how & why" he went over the limit & then made matters worse by hastily re-joining the track in a less than ideal manner. 

For perspective sake, I would have enjoyed reading social media's reactions to Damon Hill's own mishaps in 1995 (or in 1996 when he spun out whilst leading Monza). Oh boy, that would have been a massacre. 

Edited by Klauzer, 10 September 2019 - 12:09.

Thinking about it. Vettel’s best and safest move would have been to wait until the SC was called. Then he could drive safely out of the runoff and catch up to the back of the pack. No penalties, no damage to repair and minimum time loss.

yes, quite possibly. But to be fair you've had two days to think of that while he had to make a judgement call on the spot!

But they're all "maniacs", i.e. speeding & driving on the limit is literally the essence of the sport. If we're going to start judging these drivers on the basis of normal everyday motorist behavior & road laws, we might as well quit motor racing entirely. Vettel made a huge mistake, paid the price & that's that. When someone is paid tens of millions by Ferrari & he's sitting 4th at Ferrari's home GP whilst his teammate is leading... well it's easy to see "how & why" he went over the limit & then made matters worse by hastily re-joining the track in a less than ideal manner.

For perspective sake, I would have enjoyed reading social media's reactions to Damon Hill's own mishaps in 1995 (or in 1996 when he spun out whilst leading Monza). Oh boy, that would have been a massacre.

Edited by goldenboy, 10 September 2019 - 12:23.

Because consciously causing a safety car would be met with approval, not accusations of cheating...

That's an absolutely huge assumption, that every driver would have done the exact same thing. That's some doctor strange powers going on there lol.

Yes, all drivers want to get going again as fast as possible. But no, I doubt every driver is going to rejoin (after being pretty much completely off) by placing their car across the track, completely blocking it when they can't see what's coming.

Why would they not do that? It's the best way to lose the least amount of time (of course very unsafe though).

Name some drivers on the grid who would not rejoin Vettel did. 

I think they all would.

Why would they not do that? It's the best way to lose the least amount of time (of course very unsafe though).

Name some drivers on the grid who would not rejoin Vettel did.

I think they all would.

yes, quite possibly. But to be fair you've had two days to think of that while he had to make a judgement call on the spot!

Poor visibility cannot be used as an excuse in this case. It can be used to blame Vettel even more. Without being able to see incoming traffic he was joining race track where cars travel 200kph? I don't know how that can be justified. Many other drivers would behave exactly the same, which doesn't make it sane decision. He should've wait for better moment. His race engineer has all cars on track map and he could tell Vettel when it's safe to rejoin. It's beyond me why some people can't see how dangerous this was, especially week after we all witnessed what happens when race cars T-bone each other.

Edited by OneAndOnly, 10 September 2019 - 13:30.

Nobody should need a couple days to realise that driving at 90 degrees onto a racetrack when you can’t see what is coming is a stupid idea.

and yet the idea you raised wasn't mooted before then...

Easy to come up with ideas and solutions with the benefit of unlimited time and hindsight.  Less so in the heat of the moment.  

Why would they not do that? It's the best way to lose the least amount of time (of course very unsafe though).

 

Name some drivers on the grid who would not rejoin Vettel did. 

 

I think they all would.

Most of the top drivers would make sure the car was pointing down the track when it came to rest or light the rears up to turn it around rather than drive like an old granny in a car park.

Most of the top drivers would make sure the car was pointing down the track when it came to rest or light the rears up to turn it around rather than drive like an old granny in a car park.

Ah yes, because it's so easy to accurately control a car in the middle of an accident. Nonsense.

As already pointed out, he did light the rears up, but there isn't a right lot of traction on grass. Have you even seen it?

Ah yes, because it's so easy to accurately control a car in the middle of an accident. Nonsense.

As already pointed out, he did light the rears up, but there isn't a right lot of traction on grass. Have you even seen it?

Plus I also assume that its difficult to do this intentionally without the FIA realizing that you did it intentionally.

All cars passed, engine running and he isnt going and then suddenly does when the SC is called...I guess that would be easy to prove.

To prove what, though? What rule breach?

Ah yes, because it's so easy to accurately control a car in the middle of an accident. Nonsense.

 

As already pointed out, he did light the rears up, but there isn't a right lot of traction on grass. Have you even seen it?

He was in control of where the car was pointing / going to come to rest when he was going backwards. He decided to stop it right on the edge of the grass. Most decent drivers would have tried to have spun it around on the grass or go further back on the grass as to have more chance of spinning it around before going back on the track. But as we all know Vettel's brain seems to turn to mush as soon as he is in a sticky situation or is under any sort of pressure.

He was in control of where the car was pointing / going to come to rest when he was going backwards. He decided to stop it right on the edge of the grass. Most decent drivers would have tried to have spun it around on the grass or go further back on the grass as to have more chance of spinning it around before going back on the track. But as we all know Vettel's brain seems to turn to mush as soon as he is in a sticky situation or is under any sort of pressure.

To prove what, though? What rule breach?

If the stewards are motioning for Vettel to start moving and he receives the signal but chooses not to, I think that's the line crossed to intentionally causing a safety car.

I do feel like we expect a lot of drivers when they rejoin the track. If they can't see anything, logically there should be a ban on them rejoining the race track until they've been given a direct signal that the coast is clear. Otherwise everyone's in the same boat as Vettel, right? Rejoining the track and blindly hoping there will be a gap.

I agree people expect too much of the rejoining driver and I think, correspondingly, too little of drivers making their way through under double-waved yellows. It's predictable that a car in Vettel's position will rejoin. It can't do anything else. Yes, that's potentially hazardous for cars coming through, but that's why the flags are out.

Edited by redreni, 10 September 2019 - 18:54.

I agree people expect too much of the rejoining driver and I think, correspondingly, too little of drivers making their way through under double-waved yellows. It's predictable that a car in Vettel's position will rejoin. It can't do anything else. Yes, that's potentially hazardous for cars coming through, but that's why the flags are out.

But to your point, it's on the one that made the mistake in the first place to rejoin safely. As per your request, what is his responsibility? just floor it and get back on track?

What has prevented Vettel from backing off a bit? Losing more time? Tough luck, maybe next time he tries not to spin.

Vettel has been twice in this position and hasn't learned a thing. This now could (and should) have been a black flag. It's coming 1 week after a diver gets killed because he got rammed in the side, and he joins at 90degrees with no visibility.

Edited by MikeTekRacing, 10 September 2019 - 21:21.

But to your point, it's on the one that made the mistake in the first place to rejoin safely. As per your request, what is his responsibility? just floor it and get back on track?

What has prevented Vettel from backing off a bit? Losing more time? Tough luck, maybe next time he tries not to spin.

Vettel has been twice in this position and hasn't learned a thing. This now could (and should) have been a black flag. It's coming 1 week after a diver gets killed because he got rammed in the side, and he joins at 90degrees with no visibility.

If it hadn't been a Ferrari at Monza, I believe the stewards would have acted differently.  Ferrari get the kid gloves treatment at Monza, because the atmosphere can become toxic in seconds.

If the stewards are motioning for Vettel to start moving and he receives the signal but chooses not to, I think that's the line crossed to intentionally causing a safety car.

I do feel like we expect a lot of drivers when they rejoin the track. If they can't see anything, logically there should be a ban on them rejoining the race track until they've been given a direct signal that the coast is clear. Otherwise everyone's in the same boat as Vettel, right? Rejoining the track and blindly hoping there will be a gap.

But to your point, it's on the one that made the mistake in the first place to rejoin safely. As per your request, what is his responsibility? just floor it and get back on track?

What has prevented Vettel from backing off a bit? Losing more time? Tough luck, maybe next time he tries not to spin.

Vettel has been twice in this position and hasn't learned a thing. This now could (and should) have been a black flag. It's coming 1 week after a diver gets killed because he got rammed in the side, and he joins at 90degrees with no visibility.

If we're talking about the rules, though, there's no rule against spinning off. I've already mentioned on another thread that Vettel crashes so often that it makes him unsuitable, in my view, to remain a Ferrari driver, but that is not a matter for the stewards to be concerned about.

I accept that you're supposed to rejoin safely. What that means in practice is context-specific. The word "safe" is used in the regulations, but it can be interpreted in various ways. Clearly Vettel's manoeuvre didn't meet the standard that the stewards had in mind, however, I really do think Vettel would have a case if there were to be a hearing about it. He could argue that, as the yellow flags were out, he was entitled to believe that the approaching cars would be exercising caution, would have reduced their speed considerably and would be prepared to stop if necessary. He couldn't see them but he knew they would be able to see him. He didn't make any sudden moves, such as accelerating violently or spin-turning. His actions were not necessarily unsafe in that context.

If we wanted to join, say, the A1 in our road cars, of course none of us would drive across the road at 90 degrees to the traffic without looking. I accept that. But that's a different situation - there aren't yellow flags on the A1. It's also possible, in a road car, to turn your head and look out of the side window. The situations just aren't the same.

He could argue that, as the yellow flags were out, he was entitled to believe that the approaching cars would be exercising caution, would have reduced their speed considerably and would be prepared to stop if necessary. He couldn't see them but he knew they would be able to see him. He didn't make any sudden moves, such as accelerating violently or spin-turning. His actions were not necessarily unsafe in that context.

The (Stroll said it was double waved but was it at that point or not?) yellow flags DO change the situation, but only a bit (they mean that the cars should absolutely be ready to take avoiding action.. but Stroll couldn't really be expected to avoid it). I mean nonsense about black flags is just pointless ranting but he deserved the fairly severe penalty he got. Without the penalty he would probably have points from the race after all.

If it was double waved yellows then things really do change a lot as drivers are required to be ready to stop at any point. Not that anyone takes any damned notice of flags any more so one could hardly expect Stroll to start a new trend of abiding by them.

All the cars coming would be entitled to believe that a car that had just spun off the track (and was completely off the track after the spin) would not then drive back across the track (literally touching the white line on the other side of the track) whilst the entire midfield was arriving at that corner.

What argument is there for the entire midfield to slow down and be prepared to stop so Vettel can rejoin the race as opposed to Vettel just waiting for everyone to go past?

It's the rules.

"Rejoin safely" is ambiguous. "Be prepared to stop" isn't.

If you crash into an almost stationary object when you were under an obligation to be prepared to stop, it is fair for the stewards to ask why you didn't stop. If you couldn't stop, it means you weren't prepared to stop so you've broken that rule. If you chose not to stop, the stewards can still get you for causing a collision.

Either way, it is the midfield pack that is unabmiguously breaking the rules, here. Whether Vettel is breaking the rules is arguable.

I think we need to remember that the highway code doesn't apply to race tracks. People have an intuitive concept of priority where they think of Stroll as being on the main road and Vettel having to give way to him. That's not what the rules say. It doesn't say you have to give way when you rejoin the track. It doesn't even say you can't cut another car's path. It only says you have to rejoin safely, and what is safe may depend on a number of factors, not all of which go against Vettel in this case.

In practice, everyone has a responsibility to avoid the rejoining car and the rejoining car has a responsibility to make sure they can. Stroll didn't manage to avoid Vettel, but Vettel could easily argue that's only because Stroll wasn't respecting the flags.

It's the rules.

"Rejoin safely" is ambiguous. "Be prepared to stop" isn't.

If you crash into an almost stationary object when you were under an obligation to be prepared to stop, it is fair for the stewards to ask why you didn't stop. If you couldn't stop, it means you weren't prepared to stop so you've broken that rule. If you chose not to stop, the stewards can still get you for causing a collision.

Either way, it is the midfield pack that is unabmiguously breaking the rules, here. Whether Vettel is breaking the rules is arguable.

I think we need to remember that the highway code doesn't apply to race tracks. People have an intuitive concept of priority where they think of Stroll as being on the main road and Vettel having to give way to him. That's not what the rules say. It doesn't say you have to give way when you rejoin the track. It doesn't even say you can't cut another car's path. It only says you have to rejoin safely, and what is safe may depend on a number of factors, not all of which go against Vettel in this case.

In practice, everyone has a responsibility to avoid the rejoining car and the rejoining car has a responsibility to make sure they can. Stroll didn't manage to avoid Vettel, but Vettel could easily argue that's only because Stroll wasn't respecting the flags.

"Be prepared to stop" is ambiguous. It doesn't dictate any distance or zone where you need to be prepared to stop within.

It certainly doesn't mean "be prepared for Vettel to cut into traffic at any moment". They would have to reduce to walking pace.

You can’t rejoin the race track by driving directly across it from one side to the other whilst cars a passing by on it. Vettel is 100% in the wrong. There is no ambiguity in this.

This is like saying everyone should have parked their car in Spain last year to let Grosjean rejoin at his convenience ...

I'm glad you raised the Grosjean case - I would have raised it myself but I couldn't remember which race it had been.

I totally accept that Grosjean was bang to rights. The cars coming up behind him had no time to react. Even if the flags were out by the time Grosjean rejoined, the cars were so tightly bunched that it would have been dangerous to just jump on the brakes. If they could even see the flags through all the smoke Grosjean created. So it's hard to say the pack were in breach of the yellow flag rules. Grosjean's manoeuvre was aggressive and unpredictable.

All of these factors distinguish the Grosjean case from the Vettel case and make it very hard for Grosjean to argue that he was rejoining safely.

"Be prepared to stop" is ambiguous. It doesn't dictate any distance or zone where you need to be prepared to stop within.

 

It certainly doesn't mean "be prepared for Vettel to cut into traffic at any moment". They would have to reduce to walking pace.

They're F1 cars. They have a huge amount of braking. Don't be ridiculous, you wouldn't even have to do that in a road car, an old one at that.

"Be prepared to stop" is ambiguous. It doesn't dictate any distance or zone where you need to be prepared to stop within.

 

It certainly doesn't mean "be prepared for Vettel to cut into traffic at any moment". They would have to reduce to walking pace.

On that interpretation the rule wouldn't mean anything at all. All the cars are bound to stop eventually; they only have a finite amount of fuel. So they're always prepared to stop at some point.

In context I submit most people would read it as meaning you should be able to stop within the distance you can see, so that you don't hit anything. That's a pretty solid rule for a flag which might mean, for instance, that there's a burning wreck with an injured driver hanging out of it on the race track, possibly with a fire marshal running across the track towards it. If you're supposed to be able to avoid that sort of thing, which you are, then you should be able to avoid Vettel driving slowly across the track.

The fact that Vettel was moving at about 5km/h, rather than stopped, doesn't make him an impossible object to avoid.

On that interpretation the rule wouldn't mean anything at all. All the cars are bound to stop eventually; they only have a finite amount of fuel. So they're always prepared to stop at some point.

 

In context I submit most people would read it as meaning you should be able to stop within the distance you can see, so that you don't hit anything. That's a pretty solid rule for a flag which might mean, for instance, that there's a burning wreck with an injured driver hanging out of it on the race track, possibly with a fire marshal running across the track towards it. If you're supposed to be able to avoid that sort of thing, which you are, then you should be able to avoid Vettel driving slowly across the track.

 

The fact that Vettel was moving at about 5km/h, rather than stopped, doesn't make him an impossible object to avoid.

Yes, that how I would interpret it too. That's a principle I was though in driving school.

However, as we have witnessed, none of the drivers or stewards in F1 apply it that way. As long as the rule is ambiguous, they are not wrong either.

On that interpretation the rule wouldn't mean anything at all. All the cars are bound to stop eventually; they only have a finite amount of fuel. So they're always prepared to stop at some point.

 

In context I submit most people would read it as meaning you should be able to stop within the distance you can see, so that you don't hit anything. That's a pretty solid rule for a flag which might mean, for instance, that there's a burning wreck with an injured driver hanging out of it on the race track, possibly with a fire marshal running across the track towards it. If you're supposed to be able to avoid that sort of thing, which you are, then you should be able to avoid Vettel driving slowly across the track.

 

The fact that Vettel was moving at about 5km/h, rather than stopped, doesn't make him an impossible object to avoid.

that again means nothing. you can see pretty far in front at points. When do you know Vettel will actually move? Stroll could see Vettel there and slow down enough to be 100% sure he doesn't spin hitting that car. Can he slow down to be ready for whatever move Vettel makes? that's ridiculous.

that again means nothing. you can see pretty far in front at points. When do you know Vettel will actually move? Stroll could see Vettel there and slow down enough to be 100% sure he doesn't spin hitting that car. Can he slow down to be ready for whatever move Vettel makes? that's ridiculous.

What does Stroll expect the Ferrari to do, then? Sit there for the rest of the race? Magically rotate itself through 90 degrees before pulling away?

If he's smart, he'll line up to pass in front of the Ferrari but without commitment, so as to be able to turn right and go behind the Ferrari if it moves forward.

It's the rules.

"Rejoin safely" is ambiguous. "Be prepared to stop" isn't.

If you crash into an almost stationary object when you were under an obligation to be prepared to stop, it is fair for the stewards to ask why you didn't stop. If you couldn't stop, it means you weren't prepared to stop so you've broken that rule. If you chose not to stop, the stewards can still get you for causing a collision.

Either way, it is the midfield pack that is unabmiguously breaking the rules, here. Whether Vettel is breaking the rules is arguable.

I think we need to remember that the highway code doesn't apply to race tracks. People have an intuitive concept of priority where they think of Stroll as being on the main road and Vettel having to give way to him. That's not what the rules say. It doesn't say you have to give way when you rejoin the track. It doesn't even say you can't cut another car's path. It only says you have to rejoin safely, and what is safe may depend on a number of factors, not all of which go against Vettel in this case.

In practice, everyone has a responsibility to avoid the rejoining car and the rejoining car has a responsibility to make sure they can. Stroll didn't manage to avoid Vettel, but Vettel could easily argue that's only because Stroll wasn't respecting the flags.

What does Stroll expect the Ferrari to do, then? Sit there for the rest of the race? Magically rotate itself through 90 degrees before pulling away?

If he's smart, he'll line up to pass in front of the Ferrari but without commitment, so as to be able to turn right and go behind the Ferrari if it moves forward.

What does Stroll expect the Ferrari to do, then? Sit there for the rest of the race? Magically rotate itself through 90 degrees before pulling away?

If he's smart, he'll line up to pass in front of the Ferrari but without commitment, so as to be able to turn right and go behind the Ferrari if it moves forward.

@RacingLines
Teams should have helped Vettel and Stroll avoid Ascari incidents – Masi | 2019 Italian Grand Prix

https://www.racefans...incidents-masi/

Masi said the pair should have been more “cautious” but added “the teams obviously have a bit to play” in helping them avoid collisions.

Masi pointed out the teams have access to data which they could have used to instruct their drivers when it was safe to rejoin.
“They have all the GPS [Global Positioning System], all the positioning. It was obviously broadcast live, [they’re] getting all the same pictures that we all got. So there’s all of those tools at the team’s disposal.
“The onus is between the driver, one, [and] two, in that situation the teams to help them.”

Vettel has no right to rejoin in a crazy way, blocking the track, just because of yellow flags. Can't believe this even has to be said.

You even said earlier there was nothing else he could do. He could reverse and join at a much safer angle. He could wait longer until he knows for sure there is a gap, either communicated by marshals or his team radio. If that means he goes to the back, tough titties.

Those are his 2 options. Rejoining at any time like a moron because of yellow flags is not an option...

Well, he could, but it's far from clear that he is required to. It could be viewed as part of the requirement to rejoin safely, or not.

It's just not true, though, that rejoining in the way Vettel did isn't an option. It is an option. People do it all the time and it only comes before the stewards if it goes wrong.

I doubt if anyone would seriously suggest that the stewards would have penalised Vettel for that manoeuvre if it hadn't resulted in contact, so they're judging the safety of the manoeuvre by the outcome. Yet when I suggest that Stroll's speed under yellow flags should be deemed excessive because of the outcome, which was that he was unable to avoid an obstacle that was right in front of him, well within his field of vision and barely moving, that's considered outrageous. That, in my view, is a double standard and a misreading of the regulations by the stewards.

Like I said in my post, I am not defending Vettel's actions.

It is very easy as a fan sitting at home or trackside o say 'he should have waited' or 'he should have reversed'

You don't think other drivers in Vettel's position would do the same thing? I do, not one would have waited IMO - they just want to get going as soon as possible and not drop any more positions.