29 minutes ago, camelspyyder said:

 

So now you're on Pirro's side, having been anti the decision up to now?

 

I've passengered at 600mph and 7G at ultra low level, but I certainly couldn't fly it safely solo.

 

I would hazard to suggest that all the F1 drivers mentioned by us above are far more qualified to comment on the incident than any of us commentators here, even though it is likely we have areas of expertise elsewhere that would surpass theirs.

 

When 1 of us has won 13 GP's or even LeMans, maybe we'll understand DC or Pirros point of view.

 

 

I always agree with the stewards they are there to keep drivers and marshalls safe, not to make racing exciting or worse dangerous.

I thought Alex Wurz explained it quite well. In short, the drivers and the teams want consistency from the stewards, and in Canada the stewards applied the rules as they have in the recent past, thus giving 'everyone' the consistency they wanted. The problem is the rules themselves, that are preventing racing (for fear of causing an incident) and for every incident someone must be blamed and penalised.  

 

Looking at the Canada incident itself, my immediate reaction was 'foul' although after watching the many playbacks I concluded it was a racing incident and the drivers should have been left to race to the end. Interesting thought is that if Lewis had been a couple of 10ths further back he could have moved to the inside and drove straight past Seb.

 

On the upside, it was great watching Seb's strop!

12 minutes ago, tweenster said:

I thought Alex Wurz explained it quite well. In short, the drivers and the teams want consistency from the stewards, and in Canada the stewards applied the rules as they have in the recent past, thus giving 'everyone' the consistency they wanted. The problem is the rules themselves, that are preventing racing (for fear of causing an incident) and for every incident someone must be blamed and penalised.  

 

Looking at the Canada incident itself, my immediate reaction was 'foul' although after watching the many playbacks I concluded it was a racing incident and the drivers should have been left to race to the end. Interesting thought is that if Lewis had been a couple of 10ths further back he could have moved to the inside and drove straight past Seb.

 

On the upside, it was great watching Seb's strop!

Watch his reaction on Saturday after securing pole position and compare his reaction to being given the penalty and you see the split personality disorder he and many racing drivers suffer from. They never admit making a mistake worried about the effect it might have on his $45 million per year wages at Ferrari.

"Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser" -  Vince Lombardi.

 

Although in F1 the opposite should be called Senna Syndrome, or Schumacher Syndrome perhaps?

Ferrari have dropped the appeal against the penalty  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48625044  

24 minutes ago, nige8021 said:

Ferrari have dropped the appeal against the penalty  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48625044  

Not a surprise. What was a surprise was that they bothered to appeal in the first place.

It looked like a slam dunk from the photos in Autosport.

1 minute ago, KenONeill said:

It looked like a slam dunk from the photos in Autosport.

Perhaps he was advised that the 5 second penalty might be increased to a grid penalty if the appeal was not successful. The FIA have a history of not liking their decisions to be questioned, particularly with Seb's post race behaviour.

2 hours ago, nige8021 said:

Ferrari have dropped the appeal against the penalty  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48625044  

 

Specialist media (Autosport.com etc.) are not saying that it's all over.  Ferrari are now seeking an FIA "Review" rather than "Appeal". God only knows (or Bernie) what that is.

 

example:

https://www.pitpass.com/64898/Ferrari-to-seek-review-of-Vettel-penalty

 

 

Edited 13 June, 20197 yr by camelspyyder

8 minutes ago, camelspyyder said:

 

Specialist media (Autosport.com etc.) are not saying that it's all over.  Ferrari are now seeking an FIA "Review" rather than "Appeal". God only knows (or Bernie) what that is.

 

example:

https://www.pitpass.com/64898/Ferrari-to-seek-review-of-Vettel-penalty

 

 

Review aka clutching at straws. 7 races in and no Ferrari win, FACT.

Ferrari have launched a review proccess https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula-one/48669261 

Last time I can remember a team challenging the FIA over an in-race penalty, that penalty was tripled.

You would hope that they know what they are doing, but going on some of their stratagey decisions I have my doubts 

If Seb wasn't so hot headed, he could have let Lewis pass, instead of blocking him, then caught him and passed with DRS within 2 or 3 laps.

He does seem to struggle with decision making when under pressure tbh.

I think he's frustrated with the near misses and reaching the same point of his Ferrari career (5 years) where Fernando got to (and then got pushed out).

 

The really ironic thing for me is Alonso simply didn't make all those mistakes - so probably could have won the title in the 2017 & 18 Ferraris.

Well, for me the really telling thing is the head-on still on the cover of this week's Autosprout showing Lewis clear off the track, and the Pointy German 2 wheels off track on the opposite side to he originally went off on. That says to me that he did not "rejoin the track safely", and would not have done so even had there not been another driver close behind him.

Badly written rules interpreted by humans didn't give a sensible outcome in this case. Maybe if Vettel didn't make so many crucial mistakes, the stewards wouldn't have to make these contentious decisions.

Honda bringing Spec 3 engine to France this week, only 1 race after Mercedes brought Spec 2 out.

 

It looks like Honda are going to do 4, 5, or 6 engine specs this year and just accept the grid penalties, whilst the others maybe do the season on 3 as the regulations intended?

Ferrari's review denied by the Canada stewards at Paul Ricard.

 

Later the France stewards declined to punish Hamilton for an alleged unsafe track rejoin after a spin - lol.

 

 

Edited 21 June, 20197 yr by camelspyyder

Ferraris "new evidence" was a Karun Chandok clip from Sky Sports F1.

 

What a waste of time.

 

As Hamilton said today:

 

"It was definitely odd coming here knowing Ferrari was spending time focusing on something else.

"With my team, I would have them focusing on trying to improve the car.

 

says it all really - Ferrari mucking about playing politics since Canada, Mercedes turning up at the next race and qualifying a huge 0.646 seconds faster than Ferrari.

Other stuff I heard - 2 retired F1 drivers and an F3 driver think it's OK to impede a competitor as long as no-one is hurt!

The first F1 world champion was notorious for it. More than one of his competitors died after he cut them up.

Crystal ball time. What does the future hold for Gasly, Bottas, or Ocon?

 

Paddy Lowe has finally left Williams. 

 

Should Robert Kubica go too?  Sadly, his form is similar to Gasly's over the season so far.

 

Giovinazzi failing to impress too, along with Stroll.

 

 

Edited 25 June, 20197 yr by camelspyyder

The stats don't look good for Kubica, only in the French GP did he finish above Russell and in all Qually he's behind Russell.

 

Grosjean is also having a bad season 

 

Stroll has picked up some lucky points but it's only Daddies money that is keeping him in the seat