Being Verstappen grants immunity on crashing to people but not on shortcuttingor being Vettel or Verstappen cancells that immunity ?(as they had been involved in 'popular' incidents before )
Formula 1 - 2018 Season
- Thread starter Kaotik
- Start date
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
At least he isn't the designated second driver :')
You can call the finns second drivers all you want, but until someone gets a scoop on the contract details and there's no shenanigans on the track (too many anyway) you can stick your opinions where they belong, instead of stating them as facts
So far this season Kimi and Seb have been competing fair, last races switch was obvious due different strategies they had. Mercedes pulled the brakes on Valtteri, but then again, they've told their drivers not to pass each other before too, regardless of who's in front
Last edited:
I think Merc made the right call quitting while they were ahead, and Bottas agreed in the post-race interviews. No sense throwing away a 1-2 when there's an actual fight for the constructor's. I'm glad they gave him a shot. Pity his luck (and quali perf) hasn't been better. I much prefer listening to him than hearing Hamilton prattle on about his fans getting him through another race. He's as talented as anyone on the grid and seems like a good guy, but his flimsy PR stabs grate. No, a random British fan didn't incentivize you more than your competitiveness or £30mil base salary or £20mil in performance targets.
Ferrari shot themselves in the foot by not getting Vettel past Kimi ASAP. I don't get their pussy-footing around the subject. "Kimi, Seb is on a different tire strategy than you. Please let him through."
Ferrari shot themselves in the foot by not getting Vettel past Kimi ASAP. I don't get their pussy-footing around the subject. "Kimi, Seb is on a different tire strategy than you. Please let him through."
At 50% of the season, with the other drivers in the team 30 or 40 points clear, it makes perfect sense for the lower placed driver to become a "number 2" driver. Driving to support the higher placed driver in the team, as well as removing the risk of both drivers taking each other out is the logical decision, especially when both the WDC and WCC are so close.You can call the finns second drivers all you want, but until someone gets a scoop on the contract details and there's no shenanigans on the track (too many anyway) you can stick your opinions where they belong, instead of stating them as facts
So far this season Kimi and Seb have been competing fair, last races switch was obvious due different strategies they had. Mercedes pulled the brakes on Valtteri, but then again, they've told their drivers not to pass each other before too, regardless of who's in front
Just one DNF and that 30-40 points can suddenly be 5-15 points, in most cases one is lowered to "2nd position" when the difference is either really, really big (30-40 isn't) or as late as the other has lost mathematical chance for championship
--
To return to penalties, incompetent stewards and immunity certain driver has, this was worth 5 second penalty (at around 14sec mark).
Last edited:
Yup, I know one DNF can reduce that gap. But if a team wants to win the championship, it doesn't make sense to let the two drivers race. If they get 2 wins each, and the other time prioritises one driver and that driver gets 4 wins, neither driver can catch the other team. It's a similar concept to "vote splitting" in politics, where candidates A and B are "for" something candidate C is "against". A and B get 30% of the vote each, C gets 40%. Altogether, "for" has 60% of the vote, but "against" wins because the votes were divided between A and B.
For someone who has been watching F1 for so long, I'd have thought you'd be familiar with the concept of a "tow", where one driver follows behind another on straights. The front driver "punches a hole" through the air, which reduces air resistance for the driver behind, allowing them to reach a higher speed. Higher speed tends to equate to lower lap times, which, in essence, is the entire point of the sport. In the video above, that driver was using the (pitting) driver in front to provide a tow and allow him to gain an advantage. In the process of doing this, he crossed a line that he wasn't allowed to cross. To recap, driver broke a rule and gained an advantage over taking the line he should have taken.
What happened with Hamilton was different. There was confusion, and he gained NO advantage over the line he should have taken if he wasn't going to enter the pits. He broke the rule, the team put their hands up and said "we screwed that up, sorry", and the driver gained no advantage as a result. Hence a slap on the wrist to say "don't do that again", but no further action.
In summary, in one case, the driver broke the rules and gained a time advantage in doing so, so he was given a penalty that cost him time. In the case of the driver that you're biased against, whine about at every opportunity and generally act like a troll whenever he does anything but allow every other driver to overtake whenever they're within 2 seconds of him: Broke the rule, owned up to it, didn't gain an advantage, didn't get a time penalty for it.
That's something that's far harder to quantify. He didn't gain an advantage by starting to enter the pit lane and then aborting vs staying on track (which is the thing they look at - and the only thing they can make an objective judgement about). If he had, then a penalty would have definitely been warranted.
I believe the pit crew were ready for Hamilton, I heard something about Bottas' stop being slow because they had Hamiltons tyres ready (don't know how true that was). Driving through the pitlane under safety car is also far less of a disadvantage than under normal racing conditions.
Clear rules should not allow to excuse the same offence in any case. Crossed the line at the point of no return should mean automatic penalty. Crossing the line at the point of no return and creating dangerous situation should bear heavier penalty of course.
This is so simple, no favouritism, no misunderstandings for clear cut offences. Same with track limits where appropriate.
This is so simple, no favouritism, no misunderstandings for clear cut offences. Same with track limits where appropriate.
And crossing the line in a less dangerous situation where there was clearly no time gained on track should mean a lesser penalty. Perhaps, say, a reprimand?
It is. If a driver gets 3 of them in a season, they get a 10 place grid drop at the current or next event.
No, clear cut minimum penalty for obvious offences. Games can do this, we have technology to do it on track.
Overtaking manovers or other unsportsman behaviours should be judged by a panel like it is done currently, but simple things like track limits, overtaking under safety car, speeding in the pit lane and so on should be no different to what we get in games, automatic penalty. I want reliable and consistent deterrent so drivers or teams can determine if it's worth paying it or not.
Yet you want a harsher penalty for creating a "dangerous situation". And there's one rock-solid definition of "dangerous situation" that everyone can agree to and isn't open to interpretation? No. There isn't.
An advantage of being real life and no a fixed-on-rails game is that people can judge things and take mitigating circumstances in to account to arrive at an appropriate outcome.
Do you want consistency or drama?
I prefer consistency. We have minimum penalty for given offence. It's as simple as that.
You go through red light in UK, it's automatic 3 points and ticket. You go through red light and cause collision, you still get 3 points and ticket, but on top of that judge can add suitable penalties.
I know what I risk if I want to jump red light.
Teams care for the constructors championship first, and if they have 2 drivers that could win the drivers championship it's all the better, it gives you some "insurance" if something happens to one of them
Yes, Kimi gained a little from the tow but so did Hamilton - a huge advantage at that. Once you enter the pit entry, you're committed to at least driving through the pitlane even if you don't stop - the amount of time Hamilton didn't lose by crossing back to track was probably close to 10 seconds, since he didn't need to drive at pit limiter speeds
You're missing the point. He didn't choose to go down pit entry and then leave it again to gain an advantage (What Kimi did). He would have been better off if he didn't start to go down pit entry. The entire sequence of events left him, at best, in the same position he was in before. It was against the rules, so he got a reprimand to warn him that it isn't acceptable. But given the circumstances where it was provoked by someone over the radio shouting "In! Out! In!", he didn't have even whole seconds to decide what to do. Now he's been given the reprimand I would expect a stronger penalty if he does the same thing again.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Just read an article and was surprised to find out Renault does not have the "extra power mode" that Ferrari and Mercedes do. Does this disadvantage translate into an "off-the-line sprint" or "top-end speed" disadvantage?
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- General Discussion
