F1 2019 season

First topic message reminder :

Felt like a new season deserves a new thread...

It's reported in Italy that Maurizio Arrivabene has been fired. His strained relationship with Ferrari's prized asset Sebastian Vettel and cost him his job. Arrivabene got one last dig at Vettel though by replacing Raikkonen with LeClerc.

Mattia Binotto will be confirmed as new team boss

Verstappen failed to make the shootout not Q2. Max sulking

Vettel Pole

Bottas 6th

Vettel killing them in S3.

Fantastic to see the best driver on the grid on pole

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Fantastic to see the best driver on the grid on pole

You been waiting 17 races to post that

Last year Vettel was on Pole, Bottas was in second position and Verstappen third and that was how the race finished.  Ricciardo was sixth in qualifying and finished fourth.

This year Vettel is on pole - and Ricciardo qualified in fourth! That seems to have been epic from Ricciardo and Renault compared to how they have started this season. ps: credit to Vettel (team Vettel) for that qualifying lap.

Just John wrote:Stroll out in Q1 for the eleventh consecutive weekend.

K-Mag crashes, and Verstappen fails to make Q2

Wonder how long it'll be before Stroll Sr says, "sorry son, but we've got to get a proper driver in the team".

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:
Fantastic to see the best driver on the grid on pole

You're obviously trolling, but I wanna bite anyway.

1) You don't need to be the best driver on the grid to get pole on a "power" track, when you have the best engine.
2) Funny how "the best driver on the grid" has made so many mistakes lately and consistently shown himself incapable of wheel to wheel racing.


Not a huge surprise that Ferrari got pole this time around. Kinda of like a reverse of Barcelona, where they were quicker in the first sector, but lost about a second over the rest of the lap.

Be interesting to see if they can live with Mercedes' race pace. As usual the start will be key...would love to see Hamilton, or even Leclerc (ideally both) get the jump on the finger wagger.

Brilliant quali for Ricciardo...I just wonder if the car has the race performance to keep in in 4th. Expect Bottas, probably Verstappen and maybe even Gasly to push him down the order.

Some cracking stuff between Vettel and Hamilton

Five second timed penalty for Vettel, for unsafe re-entry, and blocking Hamilton.

Joke of penalty. FIA desperate give a no mark like Hamilton fake wins. What a piece of junk Hamilton is.

“Five second penalty, you dared to actually race, not allowed in this follow the leader sport”

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:What a piece of junk Hamilton is

Direct your anger towards Vettel, who made the mistake, and the FIA, for deciding on the penalty.

Guess that's how we decide races in 2019.

Vettel choking again. Imagine my surprise.

GSC wrote:Guess that's how we decide races in 2019.

I mean, the decision was harsh but I can see why they gave it. Vettel made a mistake under pressure (again), and as he was out of control he dangerously stopped Hamilton driving straight past. I wouldn't have given it, but I can see why.

Also no surprise to see Nathaniel being an odious little piece of sh*t.

Boo hoo, my favourite didnt win, so I'm gonna tell people on the internet to hang themselves. Absolute nonce.

Didn't see the race except for the early stages.   Haven't seen the incident where the penalty was awarded but I do recall Vettel doing something similar in the Spanish Grand Prix where he ran off his team mate Leclerc when rejoining the track following a mistake at the first corner:

BBC wrote:The first corner was tense, with Hamilton, Bottas and Vettel three-wide on the entry, before Hamilton claimed the lead from the inside line and Vettel locked up on the outside and went into the run-off.

As the German rejoined, he ran team-mate Leclerc out of road, costing the Monegasque the third place he had just before claimed as Verstappen backed off to avoid running into the back of Bottas. Ferrari spent the rest of the race fighting a losing battle to reclaim that final podium place.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48240781

Looking at the incident on youtube Hamilton would have got passed Vettel if Vettel hadn't rejoined the track in the way that he did - Hamilton had to break / slowdown to avoid a crash.  I assume the rules are pretty clear when a penalty is applied or not.

It may be an unfortunate incident but it was Vettel's mistake in going completely off track with Hamilton close behind him.

In my opinion a soft penalty but it cannot be denied even by Vettel fans that it came about by another error from him.

I'm looking for the post where that was denied

CaledonianCraig wrote:In my opinion a soft penalty but it cannot be denied even by Vettel fans that it came about by another error from him.

I think you mean harsh, but yes I agree it was unfair.

Even as someone who normally can't stand Vettel, I think the stewards cocked up big time with that penalty. Also liked the way he asked the crowd not to boo Lewis on the podium. Even giggled at the way he re-arranged the position markers in front of the cars.

To be honest I can't decide whether Vettel deliberately squeezed Hamilton into the wall, or not, but the track is narrow enough at that point, that I think he can be given the benefit of the doubt.

That said, if he hadn't done so, Lewis would have got ahead and likely won the race on-track and its just another example of Seb cracking under pressure.

You can't really blame Lewis for asking the question to his team, but the stewards should have made a better judgement.

I think what puzzles me more than anything else is how Lewis consistently got within 0.5-1 sec of Seb, yet was unable to find a way to get past him.

Anyway, it was great to see a proper battle for the lead, for the first time in god knows how long.

Ma boy Lance with the drive of the day despite his team screwing him over with the new engine failing right away, meaning he was on an old used engine (around 3/4 tenths of a second slower in performance).

dyrewolfe wrote:the stewards cocked up big time with that penalty. That said, if he hadn't done so, Lewis would have got ahead and likely won the race on-track and its just another example of Seb cracking under pressure..

That’s the very reason you have the rule. You’ve just contradicted yourself. You can’t call it a cocked up decision, and then clearly state the reason why Hamilton was squeezed and impeded, and denied the inevitable overtake.

As a driver, if you make any kind of clumsy mistake like Vettel did, which clearly impedes another driver, then you open yourself up to being punished by the stewards. That’s a slam dunk. The regulations of unsafe re-entry, and unsafe release in the pit lane, have been in place for a long time. At Monaco, Verstappen was given a similar five second timed penalty for his unsafe release, which impeded, Bottas. These regulations can’t just be ignored, otherwise it’s a free-for-all, and you jeopardise the very safety, the sport is trying to uphold.

Majority of the written media this morning, actually siding with the decision. Vettel only having himself to blame, and how his costly mistakes over the past two years, have cost him and Ferrari, dearly.

Here is what Hamilton said about why he was unable to overtake.

"The Ferraris were really quick. I just had to put him under pressure and force a mistake because they were so quick on the back straight that even if I got close into Turn 10 he would just pull away. And he made a mistake"

Yeah, as last year Ferrari has an appreciable straight line speed advantage over Mercedes. Mercedes with the better handling however, so Hamilton able to catch up on bends but was without the top end speed to overtake so harrying was his only option. Fully agree that rather than worrying about the penalty (which was consistent with previous incidents) people should be looking at how yet again Vettel cracked. Compare his performance this weekend to Hamilton's in Monaco. Vettel makes a mistake when he has a clear advantage, Hamilton under pressure from Verstappen and on worn tyres made no such mistake. 

Not a fan of Hamilton the personality but he is a stunningly good racing driver.

Just John wrote:
That’s the very reason you have the rule. You’ve just contradicted yourself. You can’t call it a cocked up decision, and then clearly state the reason why Hamilton was squeezed and impeded, and denied the inevitable overtake.

Not contradicting myself at all.

I'm questioning whether Seb was fully in control of his car when he came back on track and whether or not he could actually have stopped his car cutting across Hamilton's. I guess only he will know for sure. Only reason I can't decide is because the track is narrow at that point with not much room for manouevre.

The action wasn't that different from what happens when a leading driver slams the door, when the car behind tries a dive up the inside, going into a corner.

Just John wrote:
The regulations of unsafe re-entry, and unsafe release in the pit lane, have been in place for a long time. At Monaco, Verstappen was given a similar five second timed penalty for his unsafe release, which impeded, Bottas. These regulations can’t just be ignored, otherwise it’s a free-for-all, and you jeopardise the very safety, the sport is trying to uphold.

And since when have you known the regulations to be interpreted consistently?

There have been plenty of controversies before when these things have happened and drivers have either got away with an infraction, or been given a different punishment to previous offenders.

Finally motorsport is inherently unsafe. There is always an element of risk and if you try to stamp out every single unsafe action, you end up with even more boring processions that we often have now.

As I said, I'm usually the last person to try and defend Vettel, but on this occasion I think the stewards got it wrong (and some of the pundits share my view, so I'm not the only one who thinks so).

dyrewolfe wrote:

Just John wrote:
That’s the very reason you have the rule. You’ve just contradicted yourself. You can’t call it a cocked up decision, and then clearly state the reason why Hamilton was squeezed and impeded, and denied the inevitable overtake.

I'm questioning whether Seb was fully in control of his car when he came back on track and whether or not he could actually have stopped his car cutting across Hamilton's. I guess only he will know for sure. Only reason I can't decide is because the track is narrow at that point with not much room for

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/143996/vettel-steering-inputs-key-to-fia-penalty-decision

That's really my main issue, my guess is if yesterday's incident happened 10 different times at different races, at least half the time itd be called a racing incident (Hamilton on Ricciardo at Monaco comes to mind, Verstappen on Kimi about 17 times).

Yet here it decides a race. Theres consistency in general.

Verstappen rightly loses a spot to Kimi when he overtook him off track, yet the FIA ignores every driver on track repeatedly corner cutting.

The slowed down footage shows Vettel get back on the track, then move again to the right to cut off a rapidly approaching Lewis.

With the straight line speed advantage and DRS, it was probably in Vettel's interest to let Lewis get past in that situation, and then hunt him down. Probably had better tyres (trip through the grass permitting) as he hadn't spent the race following anybody in dirty air.

dyrewolfe wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:In my opinion a soft penalty but it cannot be denied even by Vettel fans that it came about by another error from him.

I think what puzzles me more than anything else is how Lewis consistently got within 0.5-1 sec of Seb, yet was unable to find a way to get past him.

I think that was evident the way Hamilton kept moving into clear air when up close. Cars cannot closely follow another for great spells of time without being blasted by hot air from car ahead and risking overheating. Therefore you need to back-off or pull a pass from somewhere and I just do not think the Mercedes had that pace advantage to do that. So Hamilton forced the error and Vettel obliged. Last race Hamilton had issues with Verstappen right up his gearbox at Monaco - the difference? He did not crack.

He was also at a circuit you can drive seconds off the pace without losing your position if we're being particularly honest

GSC wrote:He was also at a circuit you can drive seconds off the pace without losing your position if we're being particularly honest

Yes that is so but if we look throughout their careers Vettel has far more history at cracking and making driver errors than Hamilton.

Just John wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Just John wrote:
That’s the very reason you have the rule. You’ve just contradicted yourself. You can’t call it a cocked up decision, and then clearly state the reason why Hamilton was squeezed and impeded, and denied the inevitable overtake.

I'm questioning whether Seb was fully in control of his car when he came back on track and whether or not he could actually have stopped his car cutting across Hamilton's. I guess only he will know for sure. Only reason I can't decide is because the track is narrow at that point with not much room for

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/143996/vettel-steering-inputs-key-to-fia-penalty-decision

Again, it comes down to stewards' interpretation of what they see. Different stewards could have produced a different outcome. History shows they can be inconsistent in their application of the rules.

Also, its easy to look right when you're linking to an article on the official decision. We aren't privy to all the data the stewards use and can only base our opinions on what we see.


Speaking of the rules:

Andrew Benson - BBC wrote:
A number of F1 regulations apply to this sort of incident. One says: "Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage."

The question here being, did Vettel gain a lasting advantage by doing what he did?

Another says: "Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited."

And another: "It is not permitted to drive any car unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers at any time."

Well Vettel didn't gain any advantage...he was leading going into the corner and was leading on the exit. He hadn't increased his lead over Hamilton.

Drivers getting run off track is a pretty regular occurrence, but only seems to get penalised half the time.

Lastly, given Vettel was recovering from going off-track, its not obvious he was deliberately driving erratically or slowly.

So the stewards' decision had to hinge on being able to see Vettel's steering wheel movements and interpreting his intent.


For the record, Hamilton also contradicts himself - seems even he is torn about what happened.

Hamilton said: "The Ferraris were really quick. I just had to put him under pressure and force a mistake because they were so quick on the back straight that even if I got close into Turn 10 he would just pull away. And he made a mistake.

"Ultimately the rules say when you go off you have to come back on in a safe manner and I was alongside and I had to back off to avoid a collision and I guess that's why they made the decision."

Asked whether he would have preferred to race on without Vettel receiving a penalty, Hamilton said: "If you try to force a guy into a wall, are you saying you shouldn't get a penalty for that? I was going to crash with him, so I had to brake.

"I was just driving the normal line so I shouldn't have been in that position of being close to crashing. It was his responsibility to avoid that, but it ended up being mine. So because of that I lost a chance of passing.

But then he goes on to say:

"I won. Of course I want to do it on the track. Even after I knew he had a penalty, I was pushing and thinking maybe I would get another chance. But I was just sliding around and he was too quick on the track."

Later, after watching the incident again, he said: "I watched the replays. It was obviously very close. What I can say is, if I was in the lead and made a mistake and went wide, I would probably have done the same thing, because it happened so quick and you are just trying to hold your position.

"I would have tried to squeeze him, too, and that is ultimately what happened. My opinion on that has not shifted.

Quite a few former drivers feel the same way too:

Many felt the decision was a joke. Former F1 driver Mark Webber, who had his own run-ins with Vettel when they were team-mates at Red Bull, said: "Any of the stewards ever raced at the front in F1? Mental penalty."

Former world champion Jenson Button, in his role as a pundit for Sky, said: "For me, it's a racing incident. You can't just stop the car and stay off the circuit." His fellow ex-F1 driver pundit Karun Chandhok agreed.

Alexander Wurz, the chairman of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, said: "My observation on Vettel rejoining: his helmet moved to look into mirror only after steering correction! That he slid that far is laws of physics. No space for Lewis is name of game with street tracks. What happened to 'Let them race?' Was it sketchy? Yes! A penalty? Not in my view."

In fact Jolyon Palmer seems to be the only one who agrees with the decision.

Ultimately it seems the stewards chose to follow the letter of the law, which is their prerogative, but it still seems harsh IMO.

dyrewolfe wrote:Well Vettel didn't gain any advantage...he was leading going into the corner and was leading on the exit. He hadn't increased his lead over Hamilton.

You've lost your credibility there.

Vettel lost control, went onto the grass, and was about to lose his position to Hamilton until he veered across the track to take the racing line, somewhat recklessly.

I still wouldn't have given the penalty, but it's obvious to see why it was given.

What is not in dispute: 1) Vettel locked up /lost control entering the chicane  2) To recover (rather than crash) he purposely left the track onto the grass 3) When he reentered the track he blocked Hamilton from overtaking.

What is in dispute is whether Vettel could have done anything during the period of leaving the track and re-entering the track not to block Hamilton.  

It seems if the argument is a) Vettel lacked sufficient control to avoid blocking Hamilton - then it should be treated as a racing incident and no penalty be invoked.

But if the argument is b) Vettel had sufficient control and awareness to avoid blocking Hamilton - then a penalty should be imposed.

From what Vettel said it is ambiguous whether he intentionally blocked Hamilton or whether there was nothing that could be done - because he mentioned he was thinking about the importance of not allowing Hamilton to pass.  

So the stewards examined the footage and telemetry of the incident and decided there was sufficient evidence to decide on b).

No name Bertie wrote:What is not in dispute: 1) Vettel locked up /lost control entering the chicane  2) To recover (rather than crash) he purposely left the track onto the grass 3) When he reentered the track he blocked Hamilton from overtaking.

What is in dispute is whether Vettel could have done anything during the period of leaving the track and re-entering the track not to block Hamilton.  

It seems if the argument is a) Vettel lacked sufficient control to avoid blocking Hamilton - then it should be treated as a racing incident and no penalty be invoked.

But if the argument is b) Vettel had sufficient control and awareness to avoid blocking Hamilton - then a penalty should be imposed.

From what Vettel said it is ambiguous whether he intentionally blocked Hamilton or whether there was nothing that could be done - because he mentioned he was thinking about the importance of not allowing Hamilton to pass.  

So the stewards examined the footage and telemetry of the incident and decided there was sufficient evidence to decide on b).

Even if it was a), Vettel still caused it by making the mistake in the first instance.

It's like in football, if a defender trips over, and while trying to get up impedes the opposing striker, it's still a foul, whether he meant it or not.

GSC wrote:I'm looking for the post where that was denied

There isn't but I never saw one recognising he makes a catalogue of errors.

Marky wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:What is not in dispute: 1) Vettel locked up /lost control entering the chicane  2) To recover (rather than crash) he purposely left the track onto the grass 3) When he reentered the track he blocked Hamilton from overtaking.

What is in dispute is whether Vettel could have done anything during the period of leaving the track and re-entering the track not to block Hamilton.  

It seems if the argument is a) Vettel lacked sufficient control to avoid blocking Hamilton - then it should be treated as a racing incident and no penalty be invoked.

But if the argument is b) Vettel had sufficient control and awareness to avoid blocking Hamilton - then a penalty should be imposed.

From what Vettel said it is ambiguous whether he intentionally blocked Hamilton or whether there was nothing that could be done - because he mentioned he was thinking about the importance of not allowing Hamilton to pass.  

So the stewards examined the footage and telemetry of the incident and decided there was sufficient evidence to decide on b).

Even if it was a), Vettel still caused it by making the mistake in the first instance.

It's like in football, if a defender trips over, and while trying to get up impedes the opposing striker, it's still a foul, whether he meant it or not.

If it was a) it would have been treated as a racing incident and no penalty would have been applied. Formula One regulations are not the same as football regulations. You don't make the regulations and nor do I. The stewards concluded ... as I mentioned.

No name Bertie wrote:

Marky wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:What is not in dispute: 1) Vettel locked up /lost control entering the chicane  2) To recover (rather than crash) he purposely left the track onto the grass 3) When he reentered the track he blocked Hamilton from overtaking.

What is in dispute is whether Vettel could have done anything during the period of leaving the track and re-entering the track not to block Hamilton.  

It seems if the argument is a) Vettel lacked sufficient control to avoid blocking Hamilton - then it should be treated as a racing incident and no penalty be invoked.

But if the argument is b) Vettel had sufficient control and awareness to avoid blocking Hamilton - then a penalty should be imposed.

From what Vettel said it is ambiguous whether he intentionally blocked Hamilton or whether there was nothing that could be done - because he mentioned he was thinking about the importance of not allowing Hamilton to pass.  

So the stewards examined the footage and telemetry of the incident and decided there was sufficient evidence to decide on b).

Even if it was a), Vettel still caused it by making the mistake in the first instance.

It's like in football, if a defender trips over, and while trying to get up impedes the opposing striker, it's still a foul, whether he meant it or not.

If it was a) it would have been treated as a racing incident and no penalty would have been applied.  Formula One regulations are not the same as football regulations.  You don't make the regulations and nor do I.  The stewards concluded ... as I mentioned.

At the end of the day the whole discussion would not have been had if Vettel had not made his error.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Marky wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:What is not in dispute: 1) Vettel locked up /lost control entering the chicane  2) To recover (rather than crash) he purposely left the track onto the grass 3) When he reentered the track he blocked Hamilton from overtaking.

What is in dispute is whether Vettel could have done anything during the period of leaving the track and re-entering the track not to block Hamilton.  

It seems if the argument is a) Vettel lacked sufficient control to avoid blocking Hamilton - then it should be treated as a racing incident and no penalty be invoked.

But if the argument is b) Vettel had sufficient control and awareness to avoid blocking Hamilton - then a penalty should be imposed.

From what Vettel said it is ambiguous whether he intentionally blocked Hamilton or whether there was nothing that could be done - because he mentioned he was thinking about the importance of not allowing Hamilton to pass.  

So the stewards examined the footage and telemetry of the incident and decided there was sufficient evidence to decide on b).

Even if it was a), Vettel still caused it by making the mistake in the first instance.

It's like in football, if a defender trips over, and while trying to get up impedes the opposing striker, it's still a foul, whether he meant it or not.

If it was a) it would have been treated as a racing incident and no penalty would have been applied.  Formula One regulations are not the same as football regulations.  You don't make the regulations and nor do I.  The stewards concluded ... as I mentioned.

At the end of the day the whole discussion would not have been had if Vettel had not made his error.

I am not discussing anything - I am explaining. I have already said it was accepted by everyone that the initial error was Vettels - that was never in dispute. Similarly that Vettel blocked Hamilton was never in dispute.

No name Bertie wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Marky wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:What is not in dispute: 1) Vettel locked up /lost control entering the chicane  2) To recover (rather than crash) he purposely left the track onto the grass 3) When he reentered the track he blocked Hamilton from overtaking.

What is in dispute is whether Vettel could have done anything during the period of leaving the track and re-entering the track not to block Hamilton.  

It seems if the argument is a) Vettel lacked sufficient control to avoid blocking Hamilton - then it should be treated as a racing incident and no penalty be invoked.

But if the argument is b) Vettel had sufficient control and awareness to avoid blocking Hamilton - then a penalty should be imposed.

From what Vettel said it is ambiguous whether he intentionally blocked Hamilton or whether there was nothing that could be done - because he mentioned he was thinking about the importance of not allowing Hamilton to pass.  

So the stewards examined the footage and telemetry of the incident and decided there was sufficient evidence to decide on b).

Even if it was a), Vettel still caused it by making the mistake in the first instance.

It's like in football, if a defender trips over, and while trying to get up impedes the opposing striker, it's still a foul, whether he meant it or not.

If it was a) it would have been treated as a racing incident and no penalty would have been applied.  Formula One regulations are not the same as football regulations.  You don't make the regulations and nor do I.  The stewards concluded ... as I mentioned.

At the end of the day the whole discussion would not have been had if Vettel had not made his error.

I am not discussing anything - I am explaining.  I have already said it was accepted by everyone that the initial error was Vettels - that was never in dispute.  Similarly that Vettel blocked Hamilton was never in dispute.

I am not having a go at you Bertie. Just making a general point that all of the discussions of right or wrong decision would not be happening if Vettel had not made an error.

Okay, fine.  With these types of decisions care needs to be taken in its reporting and exactly what was being decided.   Otherwise people end up talking about something else.  Marky has already expressed he would not have given the penalty but it seemed to me he was unclear what the penalty was for and the precise reasons why the Stewards gave the penalty.

It also helps to explain Vettels reaction - because the stewards decision implied he could have done something different.

And this is separate to the questioning of the actual rules in place - some want those rules removed so that in such a situation a person re-entering the track can still purposely block an overtaking move.

No name Bertie wrote:Okay, fine.  With these types of decisions care needs to be taken in its reporting and exactly what was being decided.   Otherwise people end up talking about something else.  Marky has already expressed he would not have given the penalty but it seemed to me he was unclear what the penalty was for and the precise reasons why the Stewards gave the penalty.

It also helps to explain Vettels reaction - because the stewards decision implied he could have done something different.

And this is separate to the questioning of the actual rules in place - some want those rules removed so that in such a situation a person re-entering the track can still purposely block an overtaking move.

The thing is as well if you do not punish such an incident then what is to stop any driver pulling the same stunt when rejoining the track and blocking another car forcing them off the track? It is akin to starting to waive penalty appeals on the theory that a player didn't mean it.

If I was to offer an opinion - then I would keep the rule but would take away the being in control aspect of the rule - as that takes away the subjectivity of determining whether the driver was in control or not control.  

Whether Vettel was in sufficient control (stewards) or not in sufficient control (Vettel) is going to run and run - and it is pointless to discuss this - without having all the telemetrics at hand and without having knowledge of trying to control an F1 car at speed.

Below is Jenson Button discussing the incident.  He believes it should have been treated as a racing incident.  He explains that the critical point to consider is that (according to him) Vettel lost control of the car again when he rejoined the track due to the impact of going over the curb (Button says Vettel's car gets a "snap" from the curb) - and the block occurred when Vettel was fighting to regain control of the car - so it was unintentional according to him.  

You can see before Vettels car goes over the kerb to rejoin the track Vettel is steering to the left but following the "snap" as he rejoins the track he steers sharply to the right.  According to Jenson Button Vettel suddenly steering to the right is an indication of Vettel losing control of the car (from the snap) and trying to regain control. Having it explained this way and seeing Vettel steering to the left before rejoining the track does seem to place the stewards decision on the "harsh" side.

I think one of the reasons why Vettel reacted so strongly to the penalty decision was because it implied he drove unfairly - intentionally pushing Hamilton towards the wall. So that penalty could be perceived as an attack on Vettels integrity and honesty.

In the clip you get to see the view from Vettels car and the view from Hamilton's car.  In the view from Hamilton's car you can see he would have certainly overtaken Vettel if it was not for Vettels car blocking him (intentionally or not intentionally).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYUlAAOwg1w

GSC wrote:That's really my main issue, my guess is if yesterday's incident happened 10 different times at different races, at least half the time itd be called a racing incident (Hamilton on Ricciardo at Monaco comes to mind, Verstappen on Kimi about 17 times).

Yet here it decides a race. Theres consistency in general.

Verstappen rightly loses a spot to Kimi when he overtook him off track, yet the FIA ignores every driver on track repeatedly corner cutting.

Verstappen was a given a 5 second penalty in Suzuka for doing what Seb did. He missed the chicane and drove into Kimi forcing him off the track.

Seb was happy with that penalty then. Seb also crashed into Verstappen at that race and escaped a penalty.

Seb also moved twice at Sochi last year to block Hamilton overtaking him and did not get a penalty.

I could go on. Seb has form for stuff like this and I am sure that was taken into account and hence the penalty

Ferrari’s ‘right to review’ rejected, after their new overwhelming evidence, failed to overturn the decision of the FIA

Hamilton pole for the French GP
Bottas 2nd
Leclerc in 3rd
Vettel in 7th

1 HAM Mercedes 00:01:28.319
2 BOT Mercedes 00:01:28.605
3 LEC Ferrari ...  00:01:28.965
4 VPN Red Bull . 00:01:29.409
5 NOR McLaren  00:01:29.418
6 SAI McLaren . 00:01:29.522
7 VET Ferrari ... 00:01:29.799
8 RIC Renault .. 00:01:29.918
9 GAS Red Bull  00:01:30.184
10 GIO Alfa Romeo 00:01:33.420

• Big time-gaps between Leclerc & Vettel as well as between Verstappen & Gasly.
• McLaren (with Renault engine) outqualify Renault by a good margin.
• Norris only 0.009 seconds away from Verstappen (Honda).
• Red Bull with Verstappen continue to be a major contender for third place in the Championship with the Ferraris despite having switched to the Honda engine.

Seriously impressive showing from McLaren. Good to see them back looking competitive.

Hamilton wins the French GP. Doesn’t help that Bottas was absolutely nowhere in second. I imagine Ocon will secure that Mercedes seat for 2020. LeClerc in third.

Can’t look past Hamilton for #6 now. Possibly will break Vettel/Schumacher’s (13) single most wins in a season this year too.

Lol they cut away from literally the only real action of the race on the last lap (Norris trying to hold off three others)

Just about sums that “race” up

Goodness me that was pretty dull. Decent scrap in the middle in the end with Norris's issues, shame the cameras cut away from it in the excitement.

Bottas had a fairly forgettable race, which didn't help. Hamilton seems to have the upper hand on him at the moment. Some interesting comments from him yesterday saying he's just starting to feel really at ease with the car. Might explain why he usually comes on so strong in this part of the season: takes a few races to really get to grips with the car, and when he does, simply goes up a level.

Gasly not helped by having to start of the soft tyre, but to finish outside the points when his teammate is comfortably fourth is still pretty poor. Not sure if Verstappen is over-performing or Gasly under in terms of the car (probably a bit of both), but Gasly has been pretty ordinary so far this season.

It could be a rather long and boring season unless Hamilton starts to have some issues.