945 replies to this topic

[Lights]

Rosberg, 2013. Overshot T1 though.

 

He didn't start on pole though, Vettel did.

 

I think the stat is correct, minus 2017.

[Marklar]

I dont really see what else you can do there though? If you are not punishing this harshly teams will push the limits much more and go over the limit much more, since there arent severe penalties.

A illegal car is a illegal car, regardless if it makes a minor or major difference.

Edit: also lol the Renault reaction sounds so edgy lmao https://twitter.com/...507056704544768

Edited by Marklar, 21 September 2019 - 20:45.

[Raest]

I still think Ferrari's pace was helped a lot by the hot temperatures. It helps them manage the tyres better which has been the Achilleus heel of the car this year. Vettel is feeling the pressure. He clearly overdrove that lap and i don't think he had to

[Requiem84]

This ruling is bonkers to me. DQ'ing drivers for this 'power flow' is so far detached from the fans.

It's also a ridiculously harsh penalty for something that would rarely aid the driver and additionally he can't do anything about it.

It's just waiting for a more inconvenient situation to arise before they take a good look at how it's applied.

Like for example, a crowd favorite winning a race but then being DQ'd post-race. Then suddenly it'll be full drama with fans demanding the rule to be 'fixed' to avoid the sport from dying.

This is quite consistent isn’t it? Illegal cars have always been excluded from the sessions they participate in.

[Lights]

I dont really see what else you can do there though? If you are not punishing this harshly teams will push the limits much more and go over the limit much more, since there arent severe penalties.

A illegal car is a illegal car, regardless if it makes a minor or major difference.

Edit: also lol the Renault reaction sounds so edgy lmao https://twitter.com/...507056704544768

 

They measure everything, so I don't see why teams would push the limits more. They know they'll be caught. But a microsecond flow spike on a lap that was later bettered by a legal lap shouldn't mean a DQ in my eyes. Why not just delete the laptime? Cutting the track is also illegal, but it's allowed if proven there was no lasting advantage. And it's rarely penalized at all.

 

This is quite consistent isn’t it? Illegal cars have always been excluded from the sessions they participate in.

 

There is no consistency in the logic applied with cases like these compared to other type of offenses. Vettel gained more from going off track in Parabolica two weeks ago than Ricciardo did today with his flow spike. Both are illegal, but in one case nothing happens and in the other it's a DQ. And even if they penalize someone cutting, that's just that laptime deleted. \while with this power flow spike they delete the whole qualifying, even if that spike just happened in 1 lap that wasn't critical for the end result. That is not consistent. Whatever is nowadays defined as an 'illegal car' is not as much my point here.

[Atreiu]

Sure, let's pretend Max Verstappen won't have anything to say about the podium tomorrow.

Unless the start goes to sh**, Charles is racing Lewis and Vettel is racing Max.

I don't really think Bottas and Albon will feature unless they get luck with safety car or pitting under a virtual yellow.

All Ferrari have to do is keep Vettel out and have him get in the way of everyone except Leclerc. All Leclerc has to do is pit as soon as there’s a gap to avoid the undercut. Ferrari’s speed down the straights and Singapores tight nature will take care of the rest.

I don’t know what Max can do to nulify Vettel if they finish the first lap in the same grid order.

Edited by Atreiu, 21 September 2019 - 21:07.

[Requiem84]

They measure everything, so I don't see why teams would push the limits more. They know they'll be caught. But a microsecond flow spike on a lap that was later bettered by a legal lap shouldn't mean a DQ in my eyes. Why not just delete the laptime? Cutting the track is also illegal, but it's allowed if proven there was no lasting advantage. And it's rarely penalized at all.


There is no consistency in the logic applied with cases like these compared to other type of offenses. Vettel gained more from going off track in Parabolica two weeks ago than Ricciardo did today with his flow spike. Both are illegal, but in one case nothing happens and in the other it's a DQ. And even if they penalize someone cutting, that's just that laptime deleted. \while with this power flow spike they delete the whole qualifying, even if that spike just happened in 1 lap that wasn't critical for the end result. That is not consistent. Whatever is nowadays defined as an 'illegal car' is not as much my point here.

Remember Australia 2014 and how Ricciardo lost his maiden podium there?

Similar circumstances have been treated similarly. That is consistency. Comparing it to track limits is apples and oranges.

The impact of a rule violation isn’t the only parameter to determine a punishment. Furthermore, doesn’t the rule book explicitly state the consequence of running an illegal car? The Stewards don’t have any liberty to determine a punishment if the regulation prescribes a standard punishment.

[Bleu]

I suspect a lot of people are deliberately not dwelling on how boring Singapore actual races often are because why meet disappointment halfway.

 

Recent years have been some expections but many races especially in early 2010s were IMO such where excitement grew towards the end of the race and not the other way round.

[Lights]

Remember Australia 2014 and how Ricciardo lost his maiden podium there?

Similar circumstances have been treated similarly. That is consistency. Comparing it to track limits is apples and oranges.

The impact of a rule violation isn’t the only parameter to determine a punishment. Furthermore, doesn’t the rule book explicitly state the consequence of running an illegal car? The Stewards don’t have any liberty to determine a punishment if the regulation prescribes a standard punishment.

 

Doing something because you did it in the past makes it consistent but doesn't make it right by default. Rules are revised all the time, and my point is that I think they should look into this one.

 

And I think there's a huge difference between running an illegal car by on purpose through illegal settings or components, or just a system blip that was never intended. I find it a rather extreme version of calling this an illegal car.

[PayasYouRace]

@AlbertFabrega

Ricardo ha sido excluido de la quali. Ahora deberá solicitar permiso para disputar la carrera al no tener tiempo de quali. Saldrá último.
 
 
 
Ricciardo has been excluded from the quali. Now he has to ask to stewards authorization to start the race. He will start the last.
 

Dan just doesn’t ever seem to catch any breaks.

[balmybaldwin]

If leclerc wins tomorrow, would he set a record for winning his first 3 races one after another?

No but would join Damon Hill and one other who I can't remember. they were chatting about it in P3 commentary on sky

[ARTGP]

Didn't Vettel cross over the white line in the final corner on his P3 lap in Q3?  Are they not policing the track limits anymore? Or is it just at random who they penalise?

[TomNokoe]

He didn't start on pole though, Vettel did.

I think the stat is correct, minus 2017.

Sorry, my point is Vettel lost the start in 2013, but immediately took it back.

[Lights]

Sorry, my point is Vettel lost the start in 2013, but immediately took it back.

Ah that was dumb, I get it now, my bad!

[SonGoku]

Charles is in the zone, he will be hard to beat.

[THEWALL]

Let's see what Ferrari can really do in the race against the Pirelli Mercedes edition tyres...

[P123]

Apparently they are Charles Leclerc edition tyres.

[Myrvold]

They measure everything, so I don't see why teams would push the limits more. They know they'll be caught. But a microsecond flow spike on a lap that was later bettered by a legal lap shouldn't mean a DQ in my eyes. Why not just delete the laptime? Cutting the track is also illegal, but it's allowed if proven there was no lasting advantage. And it's rarely penalized at all.

These kind of things are the only ones there are no grey areas around, and bloody hell that's nice. You are either in or out on them. None of this track limit judgement BS etc. 

Just like in World RX. Drivers who hit the launch control button while on the track get a straight DQ, as that can work as a traction control. Even if they are unlucky and hit the button under braking. No advantage, but at the same time, no grey area.

 

Unless you want it to be utterly subjective and have as little consistency as everything else FIA does?

[Gambelli]

well the replay showed Leclerc was behind up until the first straight

and that's where he made up alot of time on lewis.

 

This doesn't mean that Ferrari's car has a higher potential to cover x amount of kilometres in a given time, it just means that it is stronger on the straights.  Just like it appears that Mercedes has an advantage in corners.....

[HP]

I don't see the issue. We know that the W10 is faster in the corners and slower in the straights.

The issue is that Merc is behind in the engine department. During the season, it's usually easier to catch up on aero development, than on engine development. A team can bring aero upgrades every race, the engine at most 2 times ( or suffer grid penalties )

[TF110]

I think it's the temperature and the tire pressure making the most difference. I also believe that the Ferrari will not pull away in the race. Hopefully RB will be able to challenge too and it's a 3-way fight.

[goldenboy]

:/

What's wrong with that?

[Muz Bee]

Will the overheating experienced at Austria have any say in Mercedes race pace at Singapore? I suspect it's actually medium temperature HIGH humidity so they should be able to bring their best modes along.

[gillesfan76]

This ruling is bonkers to me. DQ'ing drivers for this 'power flow' is so far detached from the fans.

 

It's also a ridiculously harsh penalty for something that would rarely aid the driver and additionally he can't do anything about it.

 

It's just waiting for a more inconvenient situation to arise before they take a good look at how it's applied. 

 

Like for example, a crowd favorite winning a race but then being DQ'd post-race. Then suddenly it'll be full drama with fans demanding the rule to be 'fixed' to avoid the sport from dying.

 

  The mitigating factors, and what gets my goat are:

- The power overflow didn't occur on his fastest lap and in fact happened on his slowest lap of Q1. So no benefit. How is this any different to exceeding track limits but resulting in a slower lap time?

- It was neither intentional by team or driver. It was caused by the MGU-H lightly over revving for one microsecond (one millionth of a second aka 1/100,000 x a tenth) after hitting a kerb.

 

If either of the above were not the case, I can fully understand a penalty. An accidental performance gain that improved their result, or an intent to cheat even if it resulted in no gain. For me, what happened in this case should simply result in a warning which gives the team one chance to bring in a fix stopping it occurring again.

 

They've treated it the same as a team or driver going out and intentionally gaining an advantage. Not only that, but they've penalised the team and driver for a car malfunction and which had no bearing whatsoever on the driver's result.

 

For a regulator, the FIA have a long history of repeatedly failing at carrying out their business of regulating in a consistent and fair manner.

[Myrvold]

For a regulator, the FIA have a long history of repeatedly failing at carrying out their business of regulating in a consistent and fair manner.

 

And yet, you are unhappy that they follow the rules exactly how they are written, and how they've have been handling such rulebreaches for years?

The sole kind of rules the FIA have kept penalties consistent and with no matter of subjectivity. 

[CoolBreeze]

I still think Ferrari's pace was helped a lot by the hot temperatures. It helps them manage the tyres better which has been the Achilleus heel of the car this year. Vettel is feeling the pressure. He clearly overdrove that lap and i don't think he had to

 

He did what he had to do. You can't tell any driver in Seb's position to drive 'gently'. You yourself already pointed out he's under pressure. 

 

It's a good result nonetheless, and he can hope to jump Hammi later at the start, and control from there. 

[sgtkate]

They measure everything, so I don't see why teams would push the limits more. They know they'll be caught. But a microsecond flow spike on a lap that was later bettered by a legal lap shouldn't mean a DQ in my eyes. Why not just delete the laptime? Cutting the track is also illegal, but it's allowed if proven there was no lasting advantage. And it's rarely penalized at all.


There is no consistency in the logic applied with cases like these compared to other type of offenses. Vettel gained more from going off track in Parabolica two weeks ago than Ricciardo did today with his flow spike. Both are illegal, but in one case nothing happens and in the other it's a DQ. And even if they penalize someone cutting, that's just that laptime deleted. \while with this power flow spike they delete the whole qualifying, even if that spike just happened in 1 lap that wasn't critical for the end result. That is not consistent. Whatever is nowadays defined as an 'illegal car' is not as much my point here.

I agree with you here. Why is an illegal car treated differently to an illegal act?

[Kalmake]

I agree with you here. Why is an illegal car treated differently to an illegal act?

Deterrent could be one reason. The cars are very complex. Stewards can't check everything after every session. They might not always catch something illegal even if they see it.

[Marklar]

Wonder who will be the one to wait long enough to pit on mediums

[Pimpwerx]

I assume Mercedes is going S-H. If Bottas is in the right place, he can disrupt Ferrari's undercut plans, and remain out as a roadblock if deg hits Charles before a gap appears.

This all presupposes a clean getaway from Lewis and Charles, and that Bottas can get around some of the cars ahead.

Edited by Pimpwerx, 22 September 2019 - 08:56.

[jjcale]

:/

 

 

What's wrong with that?

 

Unless its something that he does routinely it gives the appearance of partiality ... just wait for the next controversy and watch folks latch on to this as evidence of bias. 

[Requiem84]

Doing something because you did it in the past makes it consistent but doesn't make it right by default. Rules are revised all the time, and my point is that I think they should look into this one.

And I think there's a huge difference between running an illegal car by on purpose through illegal settings or components, or just a system blip that was never intended. I find it a rather extreme version of calling this an illegal car.

Well, you said the ruling was ‘bonkers’ -> it clearly isn’t bonkers, because the Stewards applied the regulations correctky and consistently.

Then you said it wasn’t consistent in comparison with other (sporting) rules violations -> uncomparable, because the sanctions to breaches of sporting regulations allow for much more discretionary judgement of Stewards.

In the end, your position seems to be that the F1 technical regulations regarding sanctions for breaches are poor. First of all, let’s for once not blame the stewards for that. Second of all, the rules are extremely clear. Hence why Renault did not even object the ruling. All teams are aware of tge consequences for (small) breaches of tech rules.

Thirdly, if they would change the rules to give more discretionary freedom to the Stewards to ‘tolerante’ certain small breaches, we’re starting on a slippery slope. Teams will try to find any micro gain they can. What is next, a ERS which has a micro spike in the last Q3 run giving 0,01 advantage? That could be the difference between pole and P2.

For once the rules are extremely clear and applied consistently, and still ‘fans’ complain.

Time to see the picture.

[robefc]

I assume Mercedes is going S-H. If Bottas is in the right place, he can disrupt Ferrari's undercut plans, and remain out as a roadblock if deg hits Charles before a gap appears.
This all presupposes a clean getaway from Lewis and Charles, and that Bottas can get around some of the cars ahead.

Good point, bottas just needs to stay in LeClerc’s pit window and Ferrari could be snookered. If he puts bittas can slow him and Lewis can overcut, if he doesn’t Lewis can undercut.

Same true of Vettel and Lewis of course except Vettel ahead and less likely to play a team game.

[jjcale]

Good point, bottas just needs to stay in LeClerc’s pit window and Ferrari could be snookered. If he puts bittas can slow him and Lewis can overcut, if he doesn’t Lewis can undercut.

Same true of Vettel and Lewis of course except Vettel ahead and less likely to play a team game.

 

Why do you say that? 

 

Or do you mean "so less likely to play the team game" ??

[AnR]

Good point, bottas just needs to stay in LeClerc’s pit window and Ferrari could be snookered. If he puts bittas can slow him and Lewis can overcut, if he doesn’t Lewis can undercut.

Same true of Vettel and Lewis of course except Vettel ahead and less likely to play a team game.

 

Vettel is not a #2 in the sense as Bottas but he has shown already that he can play his part and this time it's 2-1 for Ferrari at the front because Merc drivers had a bad qualy.

[Astandahl]

Start will be a key point. Then who is ahead can control the pace because it's really really hard to overtake. The driver behind could do the undercut but only if there is a gap with the slower cars so it's going to be interesting.

 

I think the plan will be to keep the soft as much as possible to be safe in case of a SC / VSC.

[TomNokoe]

Race thread

 

Race starts in 2hours 55mins

[Lights]

Well, you said the ruling was ‘bonkers’ -> it clearly isn’t bonkers, because the Stewards applied the regulations correctky and consistently.

Then you said it wasn’t consistent in comparison with other (sporting) rules violations -> uncomparable, because the sanctions to breaches of sporting regulations allow for much more discretionary judgement of Stewards.

In the end, your position seems to be that the F1 technical regulations regarding sanctions for breaches are poor. First of all, let’s for once not blame the stewards for that. Second of all, the rules are extremely clear. Hence why Renault did not even object the ruling. All teams are aware of tge consequences for (small) breaches of tech rules.

Thirdly, if they would change the rules to give more discretionary freedom to the Stewards to ‘tolerante’ certain small breaches, we’re starting on a slippery slope. Teams will try to find any micro gain they can. What is next, a ERS which has a micro spike in the last Q3 run giving 0,01 advantage? That could be the difference between pole and P2.

For once the rules are extremely clear and applied consistently, and still ‘fans’ complain.

Time to see the picture.

 

Well I guess my English isn't perfect yet.    Where I wrote ruling I actually meant the rule or regulation, and I didn't realize that wording it with 'ruling' would make it appear that I disagree with the penalty given by the stewards. I never intended to blame the stewards through saying that the ruling is bonkers, I and everyone including Renault understand full well why the penalty is given and cannot be objected.

 

To only reply to your Thirdly point: no, in your situation I would still delete the last Q3 run given 0,01 advantage, because it's an illegal car for that lap. And only that lap. If that car did another run in Q3 that was according to the power flow regulations, then that's a fully legal car driving a legal lap, so no, I wouldn't delete that lap, or laps from Q1 and Q2. That's precisely why I think the rule is bonkers.

[Marklar]

Unless its something that he does routinely it gives the appearance of partiality ... just wait for the next controversy and watch folks latch on to this as evidence of bias.

He does that routinely for races at least, first time I'm seeing this for qualifying though, but I cant say for certain.
 

Why do you say that? 
 
Or do you mean "so less likely to play the team game" ??

The "problem" with Vettel could be that he is able to keep up with Leclerc and Hamilton and then you cant use him as a roadblock, unless he drives slow on purpose. Somebody on P4/5 is more likely to be usable in such a situation.

Though Vettel could be helpful in the sense of splitting strategies and thus baiting Hamilton into a early pitstop, but I'm not sure if that works here given that overtaking is too tough to risk a undercut into traffic and a SC too tempting to not speculate on it.

On a track like this being 2 vs. 1 is not as much of a advantage lik elsewhere IMO.

Unless of course you are 1-2, then the 2nd driver can easily slow the **** out of the other driver (much easier than in Spa/Monza) and thus give P1 a massive gap.

If Ferrari is 1-2, which is not unlikely looking how Vettel swallowed Max at the start last year the race should be settled if Ferrari plays it well.
 

Vettel is not a #2 in the sense as Bottas but he has shown already that he can play his part and this time it's 2-1 for Ferrari at the front because Merc drivers had a bad qualy.

 
 Hamilton's quali lap was cleaner than of both Ferrari drivers lol

[sgtkate]

Wonder who will be the one to wait long enough to pit on mediums

Only 1 lap difference between hard and medium? Is that right? And the hard tyre seems to fall off faster than the medium?!? What on earth? Is thay graphic correct and have Pirelli made some bizarre tyre compounds?!?

Edited by sgtkate, 22 September 2019 - 09:26.

[robefc]

Why do you say that? 
 
Or do you mean "so less likely to play the team game" ??

No, I meant ‘and’ although the fact he is likely to be further up the road than bottas is a factor. Vettel has a media storm about his loss of form and a teammate with two wins and three poles on the bounce. So imo he’ll be less willing than his ‘standard’ willingness to play the team game but also playing it here is likely to mean sacrificing your own race completely as opposed to helping a bit, which I think Vettel would be less likely to do than Bottas.

[robefc]

Race thread

Race starts in 2hours 55mins

Wait, what?!

EDIT - Jesus, thanks for that, would have missed it!

Edited by robefc, 22 September 2019 - 09:29.

[Clatter]

Well I guess my English isn't perfect yet.    Where I wrote ruling I actually meant the rule or regulation, and I didn't realize that wording it with 'ruling' would make it appear that I disagree with the penalty given by the stewards. I never intended to blame the stewards through saying that the ruling is bonkers, I and everyone including Renault understand full well why the penalty is given and cannot be objected.

 

To only reply to your Thirdly point: no, in your situation I would still delete the last Q3 run given 0,01 advantage, because it's an illegal car for that lap. And only that lap. If that car did another run in Q3 that was according to the power flow regulations, then that's a fully legal car driving a legal lap, so no, I wouldn't delete that lap, or laps from Q1 and Q2. That's precisely why I think the rule is bonkers.

 

So what your saying is the teams can attempt to cheat in the hope it won't get noticed, and if they do get caught they should be allowed to get away with it as long as they didn't cheat all the time? Technical breaches are quite rightly treated harshly.

[Anderis]

Wait, what?!

EDIT - Jesus, thanks for that, would have missed it!

Same here. If I didn't completely accidently read that post, I would be an hour late to watch the race.

[Lights]

So what your saying is the teams can attempt to cheat in the hope it won't get noticed, and if they do get caught they should be allowed to get away with it as long as they didn't cheat all the time? Technical breaches are quite rightly treated harshly.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying, at all. It's as if you on purpose tried to spin what I said in an as worse way possible, when I clearly didn't say any of that.

[Clatter]

No, that's not what I'm saying, at all. It's as if you on purpose tried to spin what I said in an as worse way possible, when I clearly didn't say any of that.

 

Your right I have spun it a bit, but that would be the consequence of your what you were saying. This incident was dealt with fully and consistently within the rules. This is how technical faults should be treated.