143 replies to this topic

[FLB]

Looks like Liberty at least got one thing right about what happened in Montreal: They understand they need transparency. They've just put a video up to explain Ricciardo's penalties.

 

Edited by FLB, 23 June 2019 - 21:31.

[TomNokoe]

Gotta say, I super disagree with the first penalty. Had Vettel not been penalised last week, neither would Ricciardo. They were just racing. Last lap, struggling on tyres, etc. Just because Ricciardo technically "re-entered" the track and Norris went off doesn't mean he was forced off. They are reviewing these incidents totally backwards. Trying to make the incident "fit" into a regulation.

Ricciardo maybe should've been penalised for leaving the track vs Norris as well, but jeez. It's difficult when it's so obvious that F1 are just pulling regulations and penalties out of their ass.

The only recent "rejoining the track unsafely" I can remember was Kimi, Silverstone 2014.

Edited by TomNokoe, 24 June 2019 - 08:43.

[ensign14]

First penalty is surely slam dunk.  He doesn't make that move at all without forcing an innocent party off track.  Second one ditto.

 

Ricciardo reported that his water bottle wasn't working.  Was he dehydrated at the end and making wrong decisions?  The Kimi move is daft rather than negligent.

[backwards7]

It looked to me like Lando's race was massively compromised when Daniel rejoined the circuit, effectively opening the door and allowing multiple cars to pass the wounded McLaren. It was a fair penalty in my opinion. It's just a shame that it can't mitigate against the positions that Lando lost to other drivers as a result of Daniel's actions.  

[TomNokoe]

First penalty is surely slam dunk. He doesn't make that move at all without forcing an innocent party off track.

Man, maybe we need another thread. Norris had half the track to deal with. Just because he couldn't make it stick doesn't mean he was forced off.

Ricciardo had the high ground having gained track position by completing the pass off circuit. That's what he should've been investigated for.

[TomNokoe]

Norris literally had 50-60% of the track lol, cmon. He carried too much speed trying to take Ricciardo around the outside. Not Ricciardo's fault.

"Unsafe" lol, this really is a joke. The guy hugs the apex at such a slow pace that Kimi gains like 0.5s on him. Incredible. Miles worse than the Vettel decision.

Edited by TomNokoe, 23 June 2019 - 21:59.

[SonGoku]

Don't know why people always get so mad about the stewards? That Kimi move was a slam dunk penalty, it's like a grabbing a shirt in the penalty box, I just don't understand why RIC can't see that.

Edited by SonGoku, 23 June 2019 - 22:03.

[Pimpwerx]

Harsh on Danny Ric there, too much to receive 2 penalties.

TBF, I think if it weren't for the big stink made my Vettel and Ferrari last week, the stewards would have had more margin to be lenient. They might well have only issued a 5s penalty to effectively reverse his gains, instead of being punitive to the letter of the law.

This is why the rules are so stern to begin with. People complain about fairly standard stuff, because they just don't like the result, so the stewards get more strict and exacting in the future races.

[Anderis]

Don't know why people always get so mad about the stewards?

People are emotional creatures ready to reject even the most obvious evidence in order to feel better about something.

[ANF]

Ricciardo's audio is playing about 0.7 seconds too late in that video, so it sounds like he's braking 0.7 seconds later than he actually did.

Actually, with the audio playing too late it looked like a messy, out-of-control overtaking attempt: he's carrying too much speed into the corner. With the audio in sync it looks like pretty clean driving. So let's hope the onboard audio/video is synchronised in the stewards' office...

Edited by ANF, 24 June 2019 - 08:39.

[jwill189]

Don't know why people always get so mad about the stewards? That Kimi move was a slam dunk penalty, it's like a grabbing a shirt in the penalty box, I just don't understand why RIC can't see that.

 

If it were race track, Kimi would have defended it.

 

I think drivers are going to be more openly critical of stewards after the precedence that was set post race Canada.

[jwill189]

People are emotional creatures ready to reject even the most obvious evidence in order to feel better about something.

 

Or to divert attention and not accept responsibility for one's mistakes.

[Gareth]

Norris literally had 50-60% of the track lol, cmon. He carried too much speed trying to take Ricciardo around the outside. Not Ricciardo's fault.

"Unsafe" lol, this really is a joke. The guy hugs the apex at such a slow pace that Kimi gains like 0.5s on him. Incredible. Miles worse than the Vettel decision.

Ricciardo was only there because he out braked himself and went off the circuit.

I’m up for more passing in F1, but hitting the brakes too late, getting ahead because you go off circuit, and compromising the other driver’s line on your return to track, aren’t the sort of passes I fancy seeing.

Terming the penalty as gaining an advantage (rather than unsafe return) might have been more appropriate. But regardless of terminology, overall I thought the penalty was fair.

[Jovanotti]

Looks like Liberty at least got one thing right about what happened in Montreal: They understand they need transparency. They've just put a video up to explain Ricciardo's penalties.

Slow news, but what we need is clearer track limits. In Canada for example, Ricciardo simply couldn't have made the pass on Kimi as there would have been a wall. In the chicane, really big sausage curbs on the inside should be mandatory.

[SophieB]

Man, maybe we need another thread.

And now we have one!

Discuss away, fellow peasants!

[TomNokoe]

Ricciardo was only there because he out braked himself and went off the circuit.

Yeah, but he wasn't flagrantly disregarding the rules. He made every attempt to rejoin ASAP and was heavily, heavily compromised into the next corner. (Look how much Kimi gained on him).

Just because Norris couldn't capitalise doesn't mean Ricciardo deserved a penalty. Norris was given oodles of racing room. I simply don't see the point where he is forced off. Maybe he was frightened off the track because he was on the marbles, but again, not Ricciardo's fault.

Edited by TomNokoe, 24 June 2019 - 07:51.

[ensign14]

Ricciardo took the risk of pushing Norris off, because, had he waited to rejoin safely, he would have lost several positions.  So there was a chance of 7th or a guarantee of 10th-11th.  He went for the chance of 7th.

[Arundo]

Ricciardo tried to divebomb like its 2018, but its 2019 and he's driving a Renault which we have seen before in Baku. Both penalties are valid, F1 needs to go back to tracks with no runoff just grass and these idiotic attempts will stop. 

[Retrofly]

If the drivers could just stay on the track that'd be greeeat.

[Rinehart]

Yeah, but he wasn't flagrantly disregarding the rules. He made every attempt to rejoin ASAP and was heavily, heavily compromised into the next corner. (Look how much Kimi gained on him).

Just because Norris couldn't capitalise doesn't mean Ricciardo deserved a penalty. Norris was given oodles of racing room. I simply don't see the point where he is forced off. Maybe he was frightened off the track because he was on the marbles, but again, not Ricciardo's fault.

Sorry but I'm a big Ric fan and I'd be the first to admit he blatantly forced Norris off the track when he rejoined. Ultimately Ric's overtaking attempt wasn't a success, he went off into the chicane and rejoined into the path of a car that was already in that area. Obviously if that chicane had been made of grass or sand we wouldn't be having this conversation as there would have been a natural penalty for Ric in terms of the time it would have taken him to rejoin. 

 

This ALSO cost Norris 7th and 8th places when Kimi and Hulk got past, he's never going to get those back, such is life. 

[Gareth]

Yeah, but he wasn't flagrantly disregarding the rules. He made every attempt to rejoin ASAP and was heavily, heavily compromised into the next corner. (Look how much Kimi gained on him).

Just because Norris couldn't capitalise doesn't mean Ricciardo deserved a penalty. Norris was given oodles of racing room. I simply don't see the point where he is forced off. Maybe he was frightened off the track because he was on the marbles, but again, not Ricciardo's fault.

Flagrantly disregarding the rules is a rather subjective standard! Not sure where that comes from.

As for Norris ‘failing to capitalise’, capitalise on what? Ricciardo was only ahead because he hit the brakes too late to stay on the circuit. That combined, with his return to the circuit compromising Norris, was the only thing that gained him a position.

Drivers gaining places because they drive too fast to stay on the circuit has been a no no in F1 for years. I’m surprised people think Ricciardo should have kept the spot.

That he then lost position to Kimi as well was, again, entirely his own fault.

[rodnet1]

Although given the present rules I cannot disagree with Riccardo's penalties, it leaves kind of a sour taste that the only slightly interesting sequence of yesterday's incredibly boring grand prix is immediately dismembered by the stewards. The last 3 races are largely influenced by decisions of the stewards instead of just racing and that is just not a good thing.

[Stephane]

If drivers could stay on track, we would'nt need those stewards.

[JeePee]

If drivers could stay on track, we would'nt need those stewards.

If we had real tracks, nature would sort it out for us.

[Taxi]

A no brainer really. You can't drive outside the  track to overtake. In the Norris overtake Ric carried way too much speed in his trademark divebombs so no way he would have made the corner. Lucky for him its tarmac. In the Kimi overtake he just invented track for his own pourpose, if it was grass over there he'd have to back off and wouldn't manage the overtake anyway. 

[useyourloaf]

Problem with 'real tracks' is that small mistakes can be punished with a DNF, rather than a lost place. Drivers might be too conservative, and that's boring surely. 

 

I don't see the problem. Driver stays on the track, no issues. Driver goes of the track, either be design or because he made a mistake, and there could be consequences. Referees / stewards are part of all sports. Why is it such an issue here?

[TomNokoe]

Sorry but I'm a big Ric fan and I'd be the first to admit he blatantly forced Norris off the track when he rejoined. Ultimately Ric's overtaking attempt wasn't a success, he went off into the chicane and rejoined into the path of a car that was already in that area. Obviously if that chicane had been made of grass or sand we wouldn't be having this conversation as there would have been a natural penalty for Ric in terms of the time it would have taken him to rejoin. 

 

This ALSO cost Norris 7th and 8th places when Kimi and Hulk got past, he's never going to get those back, such is life. 

 

Flagrantly disregarding the rules is a rather subjective standard! Not sure where that comes from.

As for Norris ‘failing to capitalise’, capitalise on what? Ricciardo was only ahead because he hit the brakes too late to stay on the circuit. That combined, with his return to the circuit compromising Norris, was the only thing that gained him a position.

Drivers gaining places because they drive too fast to stay on the circuit has been a no no in F1 for years. I’m surprised people think Ricciardo should have kept the spot.

That he then lost position to Kimi as well was, again, entirely his own fault.

So because Ricciardo went off track, Norris is entitled to the entire racetrack? Should Ricciardo immediately cede position? In the heat of battle, etc ........ I'm not sure. The fact it cost Norris extra positions has nothing to do with Ricciardo. Had Norris taken less speed around the outside of corner exit he probably would've retained competitive track position. Watch the videos again. If Norris was able to hold his line they would not have collided. Look how slow Ricciardo was. Unsafe ?!??!

Really don't think he compromised Norris. Ricciardo's inside line was compromised so heavily that Kimi went from 0.5s behind before the chicane to ahead at corner exit! Norris was fighting too hard and compromised himself. Danny Ric gave him loads of space! Again, should Ricciardo have immediately ceded position?

 

Again, Ricciardo "leaving the track and gaining an advantage" against Norris was not penalised, he was penalised vs Norris only for the "unsafe rejoin" - again, despite the fact he sacrificed 60% of the track, lost 0.5s and track position to Kimi....... And being subjective is surely the stewards job. Racing is not black and white lines, bloody VAR etc

Edited by TomNokoe, 24 June 2019 - 08:59.

[7MGTEsup]

A no brainer really. You can't drive outside the  track to overtake. In the Norris overtake Ric carried way too much speed in his trademark divebombs so no way he would have made the corner. Lucky for him its tarmac. In the Kimi overtake he just invented track for his own pourpose, if it was grass over there he'd have to back off and wouldn't manage the overtake anyway. 

 

^^^^^ This.

 

If I was Kimi I would have just stayed on the inside line and given Ricciardo the choice of falling in line or wiping out the braking markers that were rapidly approaching.

[Anja]

If drivers could stay on track, we would'nt need those stewards.

 

As long as there's tarmac runoffs everywhere, these things will keep happening. It won't get better no matter how many rules the FIA can think of. 

Edited by Anja, 24 June 2019 - 09:03.

[Thatfastguy]

Yeah, but he wasn't flagrantly disregarding the rules. He made every attempt to rejoin ASAP and was heavily, heavily compromised into the next corner. (Look how much Kimi gained on him).

Just because Norris couldn't capitalise doesn't mean Ricciardo deserved a penalty. Norris was given oodles of racing room. I simply don't see the point where he is forced off. Maybe he was frightened off the track because he was on the marbles, but again, not Ricciardo's fault.

 

But he shouldn't have. His first concern should not be to rejoin ASAP but to do so without compromising Norris. From the footage its clear to me Norris wanted to take a semi-normal racing line (he actually left some space as a buffer) when Dan went off but was surprised by Dan suddenly deciding to return to the track mid-corner pretty agressively. That's when he makes the sudden evasive move to the left. The smartest move would've been for Dan to just cut the corner and given the place back. He knew he was always going to lose it. 

[jefiya]

TBF, I think if it weren't for the big stink made my Vettel and Ferrari last week, the stewards would have had more margin to be lenient. They might well have only issued a 5s penalty to effectively reverse his gains, instead of being punitive to the letter of the law.

 

On the contrary, the case in Canada ensures that that stewards would be consistent in handing out penalties. I mean, why should they be lenient this time around if they were not lenient the race before (I'm talking about meting out penalties based on rules)?

[Retrofly]

So because Ricciardo went off track, Norris is entitled to the entire racetrack?

When you're on the limit you only need to open the steering a touch on corners like that and you'll go off.

[TomNokoe]

But he shouldn't have. His first concern should not be to rejoin ASAP but to do so without compromising Norris. From the footage its clear to me Norris wanted to take a semi-normal racing line (he actually left some space as a buffer) when Dan went off but was surprised by Dan suddenly deciding to return to the track mid-corner pretty agressively. That's when he makes the sudden evasive move to the left. The smartest move would've been for Dan to just cut the corner and given the place back. He knew he was always going to lose it. 

 

IMO, Ricciardo is trying his level-best to respect track limits. Isn't that a good thing? Sure he went slightly too far, but that's a consequence of hard racing. But it seems like many posters feel like once you go over the line, there's no coming back, do not pass Go, straight to jail.

 

Again, to my racing eyes, Norris isn't massively compromised. They're dicing for position - "racing", and Norris loses out on the outside, dirty line. This happens all the time, no way is he forced off, not in a million years. It would've been remarkably easy for him to stay on track and I've every confidence if he was patient around the outside, would've had a better chance against Kimi and Hulk.

I don't agree that Ricciardo should have immediately suspended all racing manoeuvres simply because he technically exceeded track limits.

Edited by TomNokoe, 24 June 2019 - 09:15.

[Gareth]

Taking yourself off track isn't racing, IMO, Tom. Once Ricciardo did that, the "dice" was over for that corner. He'd tried, got it wrong, and needed to regroup and try again elsewhere on the track.

[Sardukar]

So everyone was running wide through the exit of the corner before the long straight/chicane (turn 7?), and using this advantage to defend/pass people. But no one was called for it. Ricciardo goes off track on the straight (essentially the same thing) and only passes Kimi when his car is technically back on the track. I don't see the difference here but he gets a penalty.

[FullOppositeLock]

Problem with 'real tracks' is that small mistakes can be punished with a DNF, rather than a lost place. Drivers might be too conservative, and that's boring surely. 

 

I don't see the problem. Driver stays on the track, no issues. Driver goes of the track, either be design or because he made a mistake, and there could be consequences. Referees / stewards are part of all sports. Why is it such an issue here?

 

It's such an issue here because unlike in football, tennis, etc. the pitch/court is not of a predefined size and shape and every situation between competitors within racing is much more different than they tend to be in those other sports. Therefore you can either have clear rules and follow them to the letter even though real life situations are never that comparable, or have vague rules and subjectively rule on a case by case basis leading to inconsistency and accusations of bias from the "referee".

 

The referees in racing just can't win if the track doesn't punish any misbehaviour and random luck decides how a driver is punished. In the case of Ricciardo's move on Norris, if that had been grass or gravel the outcome could have ranged from Ricciardo winning the place off Norris by rejoining without hitting him and staying in front, or a DNF for getting stuck in the gravel. In all likelihood though Daniel would have had to back off a little going into turn two to avoid going off track and we might have ended up with some proper racing rather than the shitfest we got.

 

More rules are not the solution here, and neither is fewer rules. The only practical solution that anybody could accept and did for decades for the most part is to have a track that punishes a driver when they leave it in a random way. The luck of the draw is a much more elegant solution to driver etiquette than having to wait for hours after the chequered flag, while stewards make up their mind under pressure and with no possibility of coming to a satisfactory solution, to find out the result of the race.

Edited by FullOppositeLock, 24 June 2019 - 09:30.

[derstatic]

I'm much more ok with these penalties than the one Vettel got in Canada. Reason is because Ricciardo actually gained something and another driver lost something because of the off track moment. He tried to overtake but failed to keep his car on track, continued racing anyway and took the position from Norris. I don't quite buy into the "unsafe" thing because speeds are low and there is room on the outside for Norris to stay on track. Still, Ricciardo was clearly off the track with 4 wheels and moved up one position and that's not fair.

 

Second penalty is fine too I think. Räikkönen decides to cover the inside line while Ricciardo is way back and positions his car all the way right to the white line but not crossing it. Räikkönen is not doing anything wrong here. The inside is closed because The Alfa has it's right wheels touching the white line. Ric still decides to go down the inside outside the track again with four wheels. The option was to go left around the outside but he opted against that and drove off the track on purpose instead and gained another position by leaving the track. Not fair.

[Marklar]

Norris literally had 50-60% of the track lol, cmon. He carried too much speed trying to take Ricciardo around the outside. Not Ricciardo's fault.

"Unsafe" lol, this really is a joke. The guy hugs the apex at such a slow pace that Kimi gains like 0.5s on him. Incredible. Miles worse than the Vettel decision.

Looking on the onboard it seems likely to me that, had Norris tried to stay on track, they would have collided, although you cant say it with certaincy, so penalizing it for unsafe rejoin might be harsh (and worse than the Vettel verdict). However, he clearly gained an advantage. So while they ended up penalizing it maybe for the wrong thing the penalty is probably justified, although not as clear cut as the move on Kimi later.

[TomNokoe]

Taking yourself off track isn't racing, IMO, Tom. Once Ricciardo did that, the "dice" was over for that corner. He'd tried, got it wrong, and needed to regroup and try again elsewhere on the track.

If this is the case, then so be it, but I think it's harsh. Seems like I am in a heavy minority.

Just as FullOppositeLock says, there isn't a predefined shape/size in F1, apart from the "white line" that varies from corner to corner. I think it's harsh to be as strict as we are, but this is a circular argument that brings us back to run-offs, grass, gravel, etc.

 

I would've reprimanded Ricciardo vs Norris and 1x 5sec vs Kimi.

[Taxi]

So everyone was running wide through the exit of the corner before the long straight/chicane (turn 7?), and using this advantage to defend/pass people. But no one was called for it. Ricciardo goes off track on the straight (essentially the same thing) and only passes Kimi when his car is technically back on the track. I don't see the difference here but he gets a penalty.

 

So as long as technicaly he overtakes on track, he can gain metters outside it before?

[Kalmake]

Problem with 'real tracks' is that small mistakes can be punished with a DNF, rather than a lost place. Drivers might be too conservative, and that's boring surely. 

 

I don't see the problem. Driver stays on the track, no issues. Driver goes of the track, either be design or because he made a mistake, and there could be consequences. Referees / stewards are part of all sports. Why is it such an issue here?

Every sport is better the less stewards need to be part of it. This sport has changed towards involving stewards more.

[absinthedude]

Ricciardo tried to divebomb like its 2018, but its 2019 and he's driving a Renault which we have seen before in Baku. Both penalties are valid, F1 needs to go back to tracks with no runoff just grass and these idiotic attempts will stop. 

 

I agree with everything you say. As soon as I watched it live I felt there would be a penalty. 

[Thatfastguy]

IMO, Ricciardo is trying his level-best to respect track limits. Isn't that a good thing? Sure he went slightly too far, but that's a consequence of hard racing. But it seems like many posters feel like once you go over the line, there's no coming back, do not pass Go, straight to jail.

Again, to my racing eyes, Norris isn't massively compromised. They're dicing for position - "racing", and Norris loses out on the outside, dirty line. This happens all the time, no way is he forced off, not in a million years. It would've been remarkably easy for him to stay on track and I've every confidence if he was patient around the outside, would've had a better chance against Kimi and Hulk.

I don't agree that Ricciardo should have immediately suspended all racing manoeuvres simply because he technically exceeded track limits.

 

it's too late to try and respect racing limits once you've already disrespected them. Other things become important at that point like rejoining without compromising the other. Once Dan messed up the move and left the track ('technically exceeding track limits' is a bit of a euphemism), Lando had the racing line and had no reason to assume Dan would steer in when he did, nor did he have to give him any room. He actually left plenty of room as a buffer but still Dan chose to steer to the left when Lando was trying to take the corner steering to the right, forcing Lando into an evasive move that heavily comprised him. Norris didn't 'lose out on the outside'. That's what would've been the case if Dan actually made the corner. Its crystal clear from the footage of Kimi's car. How you could deny that is beyond me. What Dan should've done was cut the corner and slot back in right after Norris. He might have been able to have another go and make it without getting a penalty. 

 

 

To be sure, I wish these penalties didn't exist. I'm all for hard racing but fact is theys do exist and at least need be applied consistently. 

[nookie]

If it were race track, Kimi would have defended it.

 

I think drivers are going to be more openly critical of stewards after the precedence that was set post race Canada.

the precedent wasn't set in canada but in japan 2018

[TheMidnight]

Harsh but fair imo

 

These guys are supposed to be settings standards, being the pinnacle of racing and all that. That looked more like online racing than the real world.

Edited by TheMidnight, 24 June 2019 - 10:39.

[useyourloaf]

For those wanting less rules, surely 'staying on the track' is a given to be kept, else wants the point?

[BCM]

I think the second penalty was fair. Dan was being pretty cheeky trying that move.

 

First one - meh - racing incident. 

 

Biggest problem for me is the stupidity of these parking lot tracks. Stick proper grass or sand on the side and all this artificial bs disappears.

 

In the meantime, drivers will be drivers and if there's extra tarmac available, they'll try to use it.

[krapmeister]

Ricciardo reported that his water bottle wasn't working.

They forgot to plug the drinks tube into his shoe...

[NixxxoN]

You have to agree with him that he's gotta try, however the Kimi overtaking was ridiculous and he had a brain fart there, went completely off the track on purpose, not by mistake or anything

[Pimpwerx]

On the contrary, the case in Canada ensures that that stewards would be consistent in handing out penalties. I mean, why should they be lenient this time around if they were not lenient the race before (I'm talking about meting out penalties based on rules)?

The 5s penalty in Canada effectively ceded the position. A 5s penalty here would have done the same. Stacking the penalties was punitive to the letter, but seemingly excessive because only a single penalty would have corrected the situation. That's the leniency I'm referring to. Not penalizing Seb wouldn't have been lenient, it would have been ignoring the gained advantage. 5s was a lenient penalty in that instance.

 

That said, Dan has no one to blame but himself, and he didn't complain and play the victim. He owned it, and that's totally fair. Seb and Ferrari made a big deal out of what we see here is a fairly straight forward assessment.

Edited by Pimpwerx, 24 June 2019 - 11:35.