1393 replies to this topic

[Analog]

Bliman, on 24 Apr 2025 - 09:45, said:

Let's simplify it to explain it better. Let's say the drivers are directly side by side and both go equally to fast in the corner because they want to be first at the apex. But they are both too fast. They are so fast that if they put in full steering lock they get understeer. Which one of the two is more likely to get outside the track? Surely it is the outside one in this case. The question than becomes if they went so fast that they induced understeer due to full steering lock. And here it is that I am not so sure both Piastri and Max seem relatively good in control. So I think the truth will lay somewhere in the middle. In Brazil against Hamilton you for example could see much clearer Max had major understeer.

And that is, in a nutshell, what it is all about:  If Verstappen had been a few centimeters further ahead at the apex, would Piastri then had been under the obligation to leave him space? In order to do that, he would have needed to go slower into that corner. Unfortunately, the decision from the stewards does not make it clear since they quote two different rules which are in conflict: 

1. Piastri was at least alongside of the mirror line at entry.
2. Piastri was alongside at the apex.

The word "alongside" has no precision in it, it does not say if you are ahead or behind, but "at least alongside" must mean "ahead" and that leaves 'alongside' to mean "not ahead". When it comes to the apex, it seems to me that the stewards never cared to find out who actually was ahead and it also seems as if we will never find out if "ahead at the apex" is relevant ot not. But their wording, maybe carelessly written or carelessly quoted by Autosport, means that:

1. Piastri was far up enough at the entry to be given the corner.
2. Max was ahead at the apex and had the right to space. 

 

[Bliman]

Analog, on 24 Apr 2025 - 11:19, said:

And that is, in a nutshell, what it is all about:  If Verstappen had been a few centimeters further ahead at the apex, would Piastri then had been under the obligation to leave him space? In order to do that, he would have needed to go slower into that corner. Unfortunately, the decision from the stewards does not make it clear since they quote two different rules which are in conflict: 

1. Piastri was at least alongside of the mirror line at entry.
2. Piastri was alongside at the apex.

The word "alongside" has no precision in it, it does not say if you are ahead or behind, but "at least alongside" must mean "ahead" and that leaves 'alongside' to mean "not ahead". When it comes to the apex, it seems to me that the stewards never cared to find out who actually was ahead and it also seems as if we will never find out if "ahead at the apex" is relevant ot not. But their wording, maybe carelessly written or carelessly quoted by Autosport, means that:

1. Piastri was far up enough at the entry to be given the corner.
2. Max was ahead at the apex and had the right to space. 

 

I think (I am not 100% sure) if Verstappen would been a few cm ahead then he was entitled to the space, but he wasn't. It is very hard to tell if Piastri needed to go slower into the corner. But that all depends on how much control he had in the car. To problem is defining the apex for every corner and I don't think it is stipulated in the rules. Now that we have more drivers doing this racing to the apex it would be fruitful for the FIA to define the apex or maybe even better draw lines on the track where the apex is defined. That way there is no discussion anymore and it would be far easier to decide who is in the right.

[BillBald]

Lazy, on 23 Apr 2025 - 05:30, said:

I don't think that's viable if one driver is deliberately not braking enough to make the corner.

Piastri was ahead coming into the corner, Verstappen let his brakes off so they could make their little photo, it's clear in the telemetry.

The stewards have obviously learned from his past shenanigans and adapted their protocol.

 

I think we have to hope that the stewards have learned something.

 

Past experience doesn't allow me to be totally confident. 

[BillBald]

Bliman, on 24 Apr 2025 - 12:08, said:

I think (I am not 100% sure) if Verstappen would been a few cm ahead then he was entitled to the space, but he wasn't. It is very hard to tell if Piastri needed to go slower into the corner. But that all depends on how much control he had in the car. To problem is defining the apex for every corner and I don't think it is stipulated in the rules. Now that we have more drivers doing this racing to the apex it would be fruitful for the FIA to define the apex or maybe even better draw lines on the track where the apex is defined. That way there is no discussion anymore and it would be far easier to decide who is in the right.

 

It's very difficult to draft a set of rules which would definitely outlaw all dangerous driving, without allowing room for drivers to 'game the system'.

 

One thing which the FIA definitely could do, is to severely punish dive-bombing in which the offending driver doesn't even stay on the track himself. Their failure to do this is baffling to me.

 

Max is the main offender, I'm talking about his moves on Lewis in Brazil (2021 I think) and last year in Austin and Mexico on Lando. Moves like this should be given a drive-through or stop-and-go at the very minimum.

 

Max gains a double advantage when these moves are not punished, the immediate advantage which we can see, and a psychological advantage which might cause other drivers to be hesitant to contest corners with him. 

[RedRabbit]

Man, 2021 sure comes up a lot. If those are the best examples maybe the problem isn't one.

[Analog]

Bliman, on 24 Apr 2025 - 12:08, said:

I think (I am not 100% sure) if Verstappen would been a few cm ahead then he was entitled to the space, but he wasn't.

You can keep saying that, but you should also realize that it is your opinion. Verstappen and Red Bull obviously had another point of view and Horner went so far as trying to prove it with screen grabs, so it cannot have been a clear cut case and looking at the (quotes from) the stewards report, they never really investigated that. Jolyon Palmer also conveniently left that part out of his analysis. There were certainly moments when Max was ahead, but without telemetry synced with more precise footage it is impossible for us to say, especially since their different turn in points give them both different apex'es.

In my original post here I stated that I believed that the penalty was ok, but also that I thought that if it had been someone other than Verstappen, it might not have been a penalty (considering how close it was). Now, as stated before, if it does not matter if you are first to apex, if the rule is only "front axel ahead of the mirror line," then nothing else matters. Unless, of course, if "front axel ahead of the mirror line" means that you have the right to be there but also leave space for the car on the outside. Would be nice if some journalist would clear that up for me, for us.

[Analog]

Lazy, on 23 Apr 2025 - 05:30, said:

I don't think that's viable if one driver is deliberately not braking enough to make the corner.

Piastri was ahead coming into the corner, Verstappen let his brakes off so they could make their little photo, it's clear in the telemetry.

The stewards have obviously learned from his past shenanigans and adapted their protocol.

 

But so did Piastri. I don't mind people having blinders on, but we are are talking about a situation where both drivers did basically the same thing, following the same plan, yet so many here only see the fault in the actions of one of them. Baffling.  

[BillBald]

RedRabbit, on 24 Apr 2025 - 14:57, said:

Man, 2021 sure comes up a lot. If those are the best examples maybe the problem isn't one.

 

As someone already pointed out, when Max is not being challenged for a championship, he doesn't feel the need to pull these moves.

 

And other drivers are going to remember what he did, and the fact that he wasn't punished (or not punished enough), so they will be less likely to try overtakes which would be perfectly possible against a different opponent.

[BillBald]

Analog, on 24 Apr 2025 - 15:06, said:

But so did Piastri. I don't mind people having blinders on, but we are are talking about a situation where both drivers did basically the same thing, following the same plan, yet so many here only see the fault in the actions of one of them. Baffling.  

 

Piastri drove like Max because he was contending with Max.

 

If he starts to drive like that against other drivers, he will be criticized. 

[gillesfan76]

Analog, on 23 Apr 2025 - 15:20, said:

Curiously, Piastri managed it with an even tighter radius. Those McLaren's defy physics!

 

Yes because Piastri prodded the brakes a couple of times and reduced speed. Piastri was on the limit but just about made the corner. Max released the brakes. The telemetry is clear. At some point, the driver on the outside needs to concede. But as I said, it was worth it for Max to try his luck because he had a run off area and he knew that keeping Piastri behind was his only hope. I don’t really have a big problem with it when he does this on the outside and it’s up to the stewards to intervene, which they did.

 

But let’s not pretend that he was making the corner. I like how some Max fans play both sides of the car. Lando gets pushed off on the outside while defending - ahhh he didn’t get pushed off, Lando wouldn’t have made the corner. Max runs off track carrying too much speed on the outside while attacking - ahhh he got pushed off, Max would’ve made the corner. The releasing the brakes game is up so the stewards are no longer horse-blinkered mesmerised on who is getting to the apex first, but they’re also considering how they are getting to the apex first.

[Analog]

gillesfan76, on 24 Apr 2025 - 15:47, said:

Yes because Piastri prodded the brakes a couple of times and reduced speed. Piastri was on the limit but just about made the corner. Max released the brakes. The telemetry is clear. At some point, the driver on the outside needs to concede. But as I said, it was worth it for Max to try his luck because he had a run off area and he knew that keeping Piastri behind was his only hope. I don’t really have a big problem with it when he does this on the outside and it’s up to the stewards to intervene, which they did.

 

But let’s not pretend that he was making the corner. I like how some Max fans play both sides of the car. Lando gets pushed off on the outside while defending - ahhh he didn’t get pushed off, Lando wouldn’t have made the corner. Max runs off track carrying too much speed on the outside while attacking - ahhh he got pushed off, Max would’ve made the corner. The releasing the brakes game is up so the stewards are no longer horse-blinkered mesmerised on who is getting to the apex first, but they’re also considering how they are getting to the apex first.

In your first paragraph you say that Piastri "prodded" his brakes and that Max "released" his (I have only seen on/off telemetry for brakes so I cannot see the difference between prodding and release). They did the same thing, they both had it in the hands, and feet, to make the corner going into it but since none of them wanted to yield, there was not enough track for both of them. Had Max not released his brakes, he would have made the corner. Trust me, I'm a doctor.

[gillesfan76]

This Piastri tighter line vs Verstappen wider line is a bit of a furphy. While Oscar is on the inside, at turn in point he just under half the track width out. In comparison Max is about a 1.5 car’s width further outside of Oscar at the same turn in point, but critically Max is not all the way to the outside of the track. Max is just under a car’s width away from the outside of the track.

 

Crucially, Oscar is able to cut right in to hit the apex. Max isn’t. Max tries to sweep in and have a wide line, but just because he’s on the outside doesn’t mean he’s necessarily taking a wider line because he’s not able to hit the apex. Also crucially, the line Max has taken means that he’s left more rotation required to be done later in the corner. That is, post-apex, Max has to do a much tighter rotation than Oscar.

 

So it’s not as simple as some are trying to make it out as and frankly it’s bordering on embarrassing to consider only the turn in point “width” but not take into account the apex and cap it off by ignoring the cornering phases of entry, mid-corner and exit.

[Chillimeister]

Analog, on 24 Apr 2025 - 15:06, said:

But so did Piastri. I don't mind people having blinders on, but we are are talking about a situation where both drivers did basically the same thing, following the same plan, yet so many here only see the fault in the actions of one of them. Baffling.  

 

All the more so that if Verstappen had started from second, and done what Piastri did and vice versa, Verstappen would most likely have still gotten a penalty - for pushing a car off the track ...

[Analog]

gillesfan76, on 24 Apr 2025 - 16:18, said:

 

So it’s not as simple as some are trying to make it out as and frankly it’s bordering on embarrassing to consider only the turn in point “width” but not take into account the apex and cap it off by ignoring the cornering phases of entry, mid-corner and exit.

I'm not ignoring that, I'm saying he could have made that corner with the entry speed that he had, if not Piastri had been there and forced him to improvise. At a certain point, after releasing the brakes and realizing that Piastri did the same, he gave up the idea of making the corner and went for an alternate strategi. If you look at the telemetry, you will see that it is exactly what happened. Regarding the phases, I'm sure we can agree that the corner exit was the least of their concerns. 

[Anderis]

Chillimeister, on 24 Apr 2025 - 16:28, said:

All the more so that if Verstappen had started from second, and done what Piastri did and vice versa, Verstappen would most likely have still gotten a penalty - for pushing a car off the track ...

I don't recall anyone ever getting a penalty for pushing a car off track in T1 in a similar manner that Piastri did in Jeddah and it wasn't the first time someone drove like that. I remember always being annoyed at how it's allowed, so I very much doubt your assessment has anything to do with reality.

[basimi]

gillesfan76, on 24 Apr 2025 - 15:47, said:

Yes because Piastri prodded the brakes a couple of times and reduced speed. Piastri was on the limit but just about made the corner. Max released the brakes. The telemetry is clear. At some point, the driver on the outside needs to concede. But as I said, it was worth it for Max to try his luck because he had a run off area and he knew that keeping Piastri behind was his only hope. I don’t really have a big problem with it when he does this on the outside and it’s up to the stewards to intervene, which they did.

 

But it is not clear from the telemetry we can access, so I would be very interested in where that information is coming from. The telemetry that is accessible for us shows that Piastri is the one who fully is coming of the breaks and not Max. Max brakes before Piastri does and applies brake pressure (although we do not know how much) longer than Piastri (even from the moment that Piastri starts braking, coming of the break, brakes again and comes of the brakes earlier than Max does - but the latter could also be because Max already made the decision to abort the turn). 

[Analog]

Anderis, on 24 Apr 2025 - 16:33, said:

I don't recall anyone ever getting a penalty for pushing a car off track in T1 in a similar manner that Piastri did in Jeddah and it wasn't the first time someone drove like that. I remember always being annoyed at how it's allowed, so I very much doubt your assessment has anything to do with reality.

 

Rules, or guidelines, was changed last year, specifically to mitigate that behavior, so most historical equivalents no longer apply. Seems as if none of us knows what the guidelines/rules says right now.

[Mc_Silver]

https://www.instagra...g_web_copy_link

Edited by Mc_Silver, 24 April 2025 - 18:35.

[MikeTekRacing]

it's been close overall

[Chillimeister]

Anderis, on 24 Apr 2025 - 16:33, said:

I don't recall anyone ever getting a penalty for pushing a car off track in T1 in a similar manner that Piastri did in Jeddah and it wasn't the first time someone drove like that. I remember always being annoyed at how it's allowed, so I very much doubt your assessment has anything to do with reality.

 

Its called irony

[PitViperRacing]

Nemo1965, on 24 Apr 2025 - 05:40, said:

They censor 'bloody'? That is ****ing ********!

What's interesting is how quick GP is to cut over the top when Max starts speaking. If yih hear the radio when he tells Max, when Max starts to respond he tries to cut him off.

Very unusual. I assess that they're concerned about getting a penalty for saying the wrong thing.

[Bliman]

Analog, on 24 Apr 2025 - 15:01, said:

You can keep saying that, but you should also realize that it is your opinion. Verstappen and Red Bull obviously had another point of view and Horner went so far as trying to prove it with screen grabs, so it cannot have been a clear cut case and looking at the (quotes from) the stewards report, they never really investigated that. Jolyon Palmer also conveniently left that part out of his analysis. There were certainly moments when Max was ahead, but without telemetry synced with more precise footage it is impossible for us to say, especially since their different turn in points give them both different apex'es.

In my original post here I stated that I believed that the penalty was ok, but also that I thought that if it had been someone other than Verstappen, it might not have been a penalty (considering how close it was). Now, as stated before, if it does not matter if you are first to apex, if the rule is only "front axel ahead of the mirror line," then nothing else matters. Unless, of course, if "front axel ahead of the mirror line" means that you have the right to be there but also leave space for the car on the outside. Would be nice if some journalist would clear that up for me, for us.

But do we have the Driving Standards Guidelines for 2025? Because that is crucial imo.

[Analog]

Analog, on 24 Apr 2025 - 16:41, said:

Rules, or guidelines, was changed last year, specifically to mitigate that behavior, so most historical equivalents no longer apply. Seems as if none of us knows what the guidelines/rules says right now.

 

 

Bliman, on 24 Apr 2025 - 20:01, said:

But do we have the Driving Standards Guidelines for 2025? Because that is crucial imo.

[Bliman]

Analog, on 24 Apr 2025 - 20:05, said:

So how can you argue when you don't know on what it is based?

[basimi]

It is actually kind of insane that the viewers/public are/is not aware of what the actual regulations entail.

[Analog]

Bliman, on 24 Apr 2025 - 20:07, said:

So how can you argue when you don't know on what it is based?

Just the same as you.

[Bliman]

Analog, on 24 Apr 2025 - 22:32, said:

Just the same as you.

How come? So you missed too what was stated in the report? I still thought you had to be ahead at the apex but we don't really know what it is based on because we don't have this information.

[jacdaniel]

One thing that I always find frustrating in F1 is when P1 on the grid doesn’t give a good advantage. At Jeddah, P1 starts on the outside. But the inside line is better down to turn 1. Especially with the rules favouring the car on the inside.

From P1, unless you make a perfect start, the inside line and position are practically lost.

[Analog]

Bliman, on 25 Apr 2025 - 09:03, said:

How come? So you missed too what was stated in the report? I still thought you had to be ahead at the apex but we don't really know what it is based on because we don't have this information.

There's still a lot to argue, the conflicts in the stewards report is only one part. The totally different opinions on the same incident, an incident that, unless we where there, can, if we so choose, look at from exactly the same point of view (race footage, telemetry, written statements etc,) and yet there's almost nothing un there that we can all agree upon. It is fascinating.

[PayasYouRace]

jacdaniel, on 25 Apr 2025 - 11:34, said:

One thing that I always find frustrating in F1 is when P1 on the grid doesn’t give a good advantage. At Jeddah, P1 starts on the outside. But the inside line is better down to turn 1. Especially with the rules favouring the car on the inside.

From P1, unless you make a perfect start, the inside line and position are practically lost.

Back in the old days the pole sitter used to choose which side of the grid they started on, and the rest would be arranged accordingly. I remember reading about how John Watson blew his pole at Monaco in 1977 because he chose the side of the grid he felt gave him the best run to Ste Devote ended up putting his rear wheels over some white lines. Maybe it was just a racing driver excuse.

I think the pole sitter could be given that choice again with no real problems.

[Bliman]

Analog, on 25 Apr 2025 - 11:36, said:

There's still a lot to argue, the conflicts in the stewards report is only one part. The totally different opinions on the same incident, an incident that, unless we where there, can, if we so choose, look at from exactly the same point of view (race footage, telemetry, written statements etc,) and yet there's almost nothing un there that we can all agree upon. It is fascinating.

But I don't see any conflict in the report. What conflict are you talking about? And yes differing views is always interesting:)

[Analog]

Bliman, on 25 Apr 2025 - 12:02, said:

But I don't see any conflict in the report. What conflict are you talking about? And yes differing views is always interesting:)

 

 

Analog, on 24 Apr 2025 - 11:19, said:

And that is, in a nutshell, what it is all about:  If Verstappen had been a few centimeters further ahead at the apex, would Piastri then had been under the obligation to leave him space? In order to do that, he would have needed to go slower into that corner. Unfortunately, the decision from the stewards does not make it clear since they quote two different rules which are in conflict: 

1. Piastri was at least alongside of the mirror line at entry.
2. Piastri was alongside at the apex.

The word "alongside" has no precision in it, it does not say if you are ahead or behind, but "at least alongside" must mean "ahead" and that leaves 'alongside' to mean "not ahead". When it comes to the apex, it seems to me that the stewards never cared to find out who actually was ahead and it also seems as if we will never find out if "ahead at the apex" is relevant ot not. But their wording, maybe carelessly written or carelessly quoted by Autosport, means that:

1. Piastri was far up enough at the entry to be given the corner.
2. Max was ahead at the apex and had the right to space. 

 

 

EDIT: To add, because of the potential significance that situation might have for the championship, and the (in my opinion) complicated situation (who was where when, who's apex, etcetera) had me believe they would take care to get the decision right. That is why I was surprised to see the verdict only one minute after they announced tha they was investigating it. I mean, the discussion here would indicate that it was not really such a clear cut case. 

Edited by Analog, 25 April 2025 - 12:16.

[Bliman]

Analog, on 25 Apr 2025 - 12:08, said:

EDIT: To add, because of the potential significance that situation might have for the championship, and the (in my opinion) complicated situation (who was where when, who's apex, etcetera) had me believe they would take care to get the decision right. That is why I was surprised to see the verdict only one minute after they announced tha they was investigating it. I mean, the discussion here would indicate that it was not really such a clear cut case.

I still don't see any conflict because we don't have the information where it is based on. For all we know being alongside would be enough to claim the space.

[Analog]

Bliman, on 25 Apr 2025 - 12:33, said:

I still don't see any conflict because we don't have the information where it is based on. For all we know being alongside would be enough to claim the space.

No, it cannot because it "alongside" does not say if it is ahead ot behind a certain reference point and different objects in motion would never be perfectly aligned for more than a split nanosecond or so. "He's going up alongside!"

[Bliman]

Analog, on 25 Apr 2025 - 13:05, said:

No, it cannot because it "alongside" does not say if it is ahead ot behind a certain reference point and different objects in motion would never be perfectly aligned for more than a split nanosecond or so. "He's going up alongside!"

But how do you discuss it when we are not privy to have the information where it is laid out? You are then basically arguing in thin air.

[Analog]

Bliman, on 25 Apr 2025 - 13:40, said:

But how do you discuss it when we are not privy to have the information where it is laid out? You are then basically arguing in thin air.

Best way is pantomimes, but illustrative dancing can be quite efficient as well.

[Afterburner]

Analog, on 25 Apr 2025 - 15:37, said:

Best way is pantomimes, but illustrative dancing can be quite efficient as well.

Hi BRG

[Bliman]

Analog, on 25 Apr 2025 - 15:37, said:

Best way is pantomimes, but illustrative dancing can be quite efficient as well.

?

[Analog]

Afterburner, on 25 Apr 2025 - 15:49, said:

Hi BRG

LOL I've been to a couple of THE MOST WUTHERING HEIGHTS DAY EVER, It's fun  

[KWSN - DSM]

Analog, on 25 Apr 2025 - 16:27, said:

LOL I've been to a couple of THE MOST WUTHERING HEIGHTS DAY EVER, It's fun

 

Think we had part of a thread dedicated to her last year, maybe some years ago.

[KWSN - DSM]

KWSN - DSM, on 25 Apr 2025 - 16:34, said:

Think we had part of a thread dedicated to her last year, maybe some years ago.

 

And we did, I was first 'hater'.... https://forums.autos...read/?p=9943141

[Ivanhoe]

PayasYouRace, on 25 Apr 2025 - 11:53, said:

Back in the old days the pole sitter used to choose which side of the grid they started on, and the rest would be arranged accordingly. I remember reading about how John Watson blew his pole at Monaco in 1977 because he chose the side of the grid he felt gave him the best run to Ste Devote ended up putting his rear wheels over some white lines. Maybe it was just a racing driver excuse.

I think the pole sitter could be given that choice again with no real problems.

They just need an extra sensor at slot 21.

[Analog]

KWSN - DSM, on 25 Apr 2025 - 17:40, said:

And we did, I was first 'hater'.... https://forums.autos...read/?p=9943141

The gated community again. Is it "Paddock Club"?

[BRG]

Afterburner, on 25 Apr 2025 - 15:49, said:

Hi BRG

Thank you.  Maybe just in time to stall the pointless navel-gazing over a minor turn one incident.