I hope you be a world title
The problem is people don't yield !! When their clearly being past up the inside yield !!Cutting back & Tucking in gives you more chance of re-passing them again anyway !!
This passage is punish-free (ever been), because coercions of Force Majeure!!Rule "unsafe reentry" not applicable! Risk of death!Principle: LAW FOR human FREE WILL. Driver on green emergency-strip is not free in his choice, he reenter always unsafe!Rule of security-strip is: PULL THROUGH! The traffic has to take care with foresight.Same like uncontrolled damaged cars slipped back to track!The rule unsafe reentry at this danger spot is an assassination, shot into the back!SAFETY FIRST for all drivers, not HAM alone! Rule imaginary RED traffic-light on danger zone by Police forbidden!The collective mind loss - moronic
Vettel was robbed..... and the FIA wonders why us fans are pissed at the state of F1........
How can anybody talk about fair racing when DRS is there?
He looks like Chandler from friends! I was wondering for months who he reminds me of... haha KARMA!the Chan chan man
much better than the analysis done by the internet mob
I just found these. A great Series Jolyon thanks! Keep 'em coming
5:50 Hamilton should have got a penalty.
Am I the only ferrari fan that think that the penalty was actually deserved?
Its look like they put pressure on him and threatened him and gave him a script lol Haha LMFAO
This video is a joke! A joke!
If Vettel is out of control when he rejoins does that not mean that due to art. 38.2 a) of the formula 1 sporting regulation he can not be penalized for rejoining unsafely? And honestly just because he took a quick look in the mirror does not mean that he actively tried too block Hamilton. I mean here in this video it is slowed down but in real life this happened within 0.1 seconds.
Only sore losers don't agree with Palmer. People that have beef against Hamilton obviously will not agree with 5 sec penalty even if Vettel comes on TV and says the Stuart's gave the right decision people still disagree with 5 sec because they hate Hamilton and doesn't matter what you say. Some people are just losers by birth it's in their DNA to disagree with 5 second. All top drivers including Palmer and Nico Rosberg agree with the 5 second and than we have the losers that can't stop crying for a victory no matter what you do on the circuit they just want to win at all cost. Then we have Hamilton the champion the best driver of all time and what can he do but win it's on his DNA to win you can't ask a champion to lose a race so someone can win because we have alot of fan's cry babies and they want someone else to win so give what the cry babies wants or they will cry and scream even more.
Vettel should make a apology to the Ferrari fans and Hamilton for is bad behaviours.
I don't think Vettel did anything wrong. He was trying to stay in the lead. Hamilton should have anticipated which direction Vettel's car was going to go and could have chosen another line to overtake. It's a race. Drivers block other drivers all the time. What's next for formula 1 cars? Turn signals? That's just my opinion.
And you're well-entitled to it.My opinion is that F1 racing as a sport as evolved. The excitement is still there. Only, the gap between the rich (teams) and the poor (teams) has widened significantly. Or maybe it hasn't ... maybe in the days of Mansell and Andretti, the rich teams just went by a different corporate name. Did Mansell win a lot because of extraordinary driving talent? Or because of a superior car? Isn't that the same argument we have with Schumacher, Senna, Vettel, and Hamilton? Superior driver ... or superior car?That said, the days of Mansell and Andretti may have been the days of wine and roses, red wine and blood roses ... to be sure, there's a large element of romance in the past and for the past ... but those days also had a pall over them, for each F1 race had an inherent "uncomfortable" probability of delivering death. Car safety was not the highest priority in those days, speeches to the contrary notwithstanding. Today, we rarely worry about fatal F1 racing accidents, at least not with a feeling of uncomfortable probability. But that's just the way of evolution. We start form a primitive beginnings and move forward to a more advanced state ... and keep on moving. While moving, we yearn for the romance of the past. Legends and myths are both born as we abandon the past.Did Vettel deserve a penalty? Yes. Not because of intent or lack thereof, but because of track clearance or lack thereof. When he went off the grass, Vettel initiated a virtual collision; Hamilton’s quick thinking averted a real collision. If Hamilton had been further back, say 3 seconds (when Vettel went off the grass), then there would have been no collision, virtual or otherwise ... and no need for a penalty.Vettel should not be penalized for his racing, but he should be penalized for making a racing error when Hamilton was only a second or so behind ... which then made (1) a virtual collision inescapable, and (2) the responsible party culpable.Pax
"where is Palmer?""Fernando, Palmer is here""Oh, what a joke!"😂😂😂
Basically, if you run off, always rejoin slowly and leave a wide space to make sure you get passed by the driver behind you.
that comparison with the suzuka incident was absolutely bonkers, Verstappen clearly had control over his car when it was time to rejoin the track, Vettel was just just a passenger when he returned to the tarmac. So i don´t agree with the argument that the stewards have been consistent.
Whatever you say 😉
Change/revise the rule this way:If driver is clearly visible thru the whole "maneuver" of rejoining the track, then it is responsibility of the following car to adjust speed accordingly, to prevent collision.In that sense Seb (absolutely so) and Max (less so) were visible all the time of their "exit/rejoin" activity, so they should not be punished under revised rule.If I was on highway, following a car that lost control, It would be my responsibility to prevent colliding with "troubled" car.
@kocotube01 začasni I’m keen on fair play or lack therein that informs punishment. There are valid reasons for punishing professional athletes for the use of steroids ... to preserve a fair playing field; too, to send a health service message to future generations, etc. These same reasons apply to F1 racing.As for virtual punishment for a real racing crime (evaluated as such by the forensics of a virtual collision), bad idea. Real racing crimes can only be addressed with real racing punishments. And if you leave either punishment or exoneration to post-race analysis, then you let the stewards have total judgment over points and proceedings. At least within the race, the rightly or wrongly adjudged still has a chance to overcome his punishment.DDI in itself is an interesting concept, but only as a supplemental penalty ... not as a substitute for in-race assessments of racing crimes and punishments.PS: Hamilton slammed on the brakes to avoid collision. Hamilton had no obligation to adjust his speed while in the racing line on the racing track; nonetheless, he was obliged to slam the brakes to avoid the virtual collision initiated by Vettel. The driver that goes off track bears sole responsibility. On city highways, for example, the rear driver bears responsibility for the avoidance of collision with the front driver; but only if the front driver is in the same lane. If the front driver cuts across lanes, then the front driver bears the responsbility. You can only cross lanes if you have lane clearance. Ditto for racing tracks. The stewards and F1 pundits could have and should have explained it better, but for all intents and purposes, lack of track clearance is why Vettel received the penalty when his car careered onto the racing line driven by Hamilton.Pax
Since you are so keen on punishing, then I propose amending the rule with a virtual punishment for virtual accidents. Some sort of dangerous driver individual index (DDII).In the case of Canada GP Vettel/Hamilton virtual collision Vettel would get virtual punishment. That could be transformed into real punishment after the race, or not. Who would decide? His peers - all other drivers would vote on each case after every race. Vettel would keep his win, but could end up with diminished amount of driver`s points. In case of French GP Ricciardo/Noris/Raikoenen judging drivers might even decide not to punish Ricciardo with real points deduction, but his DDII would still hold record of virtual offense. And in the next race Ricciardo would have to be more careful not to repeat his fringe driving behavior, that could cost him real points next time.I could live with this Virtuality in racing, since it is just a game.PSHamilton didn't "lift" throttle until he was side by side with Vettel (see throttle-break-throttle-break in seconds 47`- 51` of this video). That is not avoiding collision, it is putting him in harms way. That is opportunistic behavior. But once he realized his own car could end in the wall he finally broke. His behavior needs no award in my opinion. Opportunistic behavior from both drivers in my opinion. That is essence of top race driving. Punishing one and rewarding the other is not in spirit of fair play. It dulls the competitiveness. They might just as well go golfing or even better fishing next time in Canada.So to recap: real danger/collision leads to real punishment, virtual danger/collision leads to virtual and/or real punishment and drivers vote on it.
If they don't break any other rule when back on the track, changing direction more than once for instance or any other, there would be no discouraging needed. As I`ve said, if their actions are clearly visible, it`s race time.
How would such a rule discourage "troubled cars" from attempting to prematurely race as "untroubled cars" while still in a troubled state, showing no regard for the track or any cars that may be on it at the time of troubled car's re-entry?Vettel was prematurely racing prior to re-establishing car control (here, the telemetry on his car belies Vettel's claim that he was only focused on gaining control, and that he only began racing after he had regained control). In short, Vettel was racing as an untroubled car while his car was still in a troubled state. Cars behind him would have had no choice but to adjust speed to avoid collision, and that's exactly what Hamilton did.So how would your proposed rule inform the Canadian Grand Prix 2019 incident?It wouldn't. Your proposed rule would basically give a blank cheque to Vettel, which he could cash to get away with dangerous driving; deceive about his degree of car control; and ignore the fact that a car driver, whether driving on a city street or racing on a professional circuit, is still responsible for any damage created by his kinetic machine, car control or no car control. I can't lose control on an icy patch of road, collide into a parked car, then expect to get away from the scene without recompensing the owner of the parked car in some amount for the damage done to the latter's mode and means of transport.Vettel had a virtual collision with Hamilton for all intents and purposes ... it was the latter's awareness that avoided a real collision. Vettel was being justifiably punished for the virtual collision that he initiated, and Hamilton was being justifiably rewarded for the real collision that he avoided. Again, the stewards made the right decision in Montreal 2019.Pax
McLaren not quick on the straights? Did Jolyon not see Norris' overtake on a Red Bull down the long straight?
Palmer has got a talent...good coverage
Ferrari fans are crying like a dog now.
I, he's a twining cunt Grosjean. I can't be doing with basically grassing up to authorities on drivers who pass you.I hate this about modern F1.
He has to say that "He's Bittish"
maybe this why palmer was never a race winner, gutless pos
The stewards got it right, as Jolyon Palmer states ... but Palmer's reasoning is flawed, IMO. What I have yet to hear from any of the racing experts and less-decorated couch pundits is the concept of track clearance. If Hamilton had been 5 seconds behind when Vettel went off the track - even 3 seconds - then the track would have been clear when Vettel careered back onto it. Ergo, it would have been a safe return. As it was, Hamilton was only a second or so behind when Vettel slipped onto the grass. That meant the track was not clear for Vettel's car to re-enter safely because Hamilton was not far enough behind to afford either driver the freedom to drive as they pleased. One or the other would've been obliged to take evasive action, and indeed, this is what happened with Hamilton having to slam on his brakes.So the event should be viewed not as a function of Vettel's intent, but as a function of track clearance. Even with the best intention and the most determined evasive manouevre by Vettel, if his car still careered onto the path of Hamilton's, then that's a racing crime and richly deserves a racing punishment.A pentasecond may have been a bit much, granted. Perhaps the stewards should have told Vettel to give up the position and then attempt to get it back from Hamilton. That would have been commensurate with Vettel's mistake (and racing crime).Cheers
@Hamir Thapar I don’t agree with the implied sentiment that all mistakes should be treated the same and left unpenalized. Some mistakes warrant penalty; others don’t. As for Mansell, Andretti, et al, they are all racing drivers. As past F1 world champions, they have some of the best racing instincts. Alas, something higher than instincts are needed to render the best judgments as per racing crimes and racing punishments. It takes impartial observers to arrive at objective judgments. It takes caretakers of the goldfish bowl to regulate the environment and ensure the health of the goldfish. The goldfish themselves swim about and radiate beauty. Racing drivers should focus on their strengths (e.g. racing) and leave the rest to the managers of the racetrack (e.g. the proverbial goldfish bowl).As for Monaco 2016, my comments are restricted to Montreal 2019. The merits of one situation should not abuse the merits of another. I have not studied Monaco 2016. We’ll leave it at that.My argument hasn’t been represented elsewhere (to the best of my knowledge). And it is this: Vettel deserved a penalty not because of his intent or lack thereof, but because of track clearance or lack thereof. If Hamilton had been say, 3 seconds behind, then the track would have been clear for Vettel to correct his mistake and re-enter the track without incident. If Jethro Bodine in his junkworthy jalopy, with the Clampetts and all their Bug Tussle belongings in tow, had been 0.003 seconds behind, likewise the track would have been clear. Or had Gary Gabelich in his Bonneville Salt Flats speed record Blue Flame been more than 9 seconds behind Vettel, the track would have been clear for Vettel’s re-entry. Clear track, no penalty. Conversely, obstructed track, penalty.Intent should have nothing to do with it. Outcome everything. It’s the outcome, namely, Vettel’s car entering a space that was not cleared for entry that deserved a penalty, not Vettel’s intent or lack thereof to enter said space.Vettel created the initial error. There wouldn’t have been any consequences if no one had to pay for Vettel’s mistake. But that’s not what happened. Vettel’s mistake had consequences. Hamilton’s tires suffered rubber wear when he had to brake hard to avoid collision. So why should someone else have to pay for Vettel’s mistake? The stewards understood the injustice of one driver paying for the self-inflicted mistake of another driver. Justifiably, they had no hesitation in applying the F1 rules and regulations strictly and without forgiveness. In the end, the right thing was done.I’ll concede that a pentasecond penalty is probably too much in the given situation. Forcing Vettel to give up track position to Hamilton on the race track would have been a more equitable penalty. Vettel would have then had an opportunity to chase down Hamilton for the win. In any event, the race was not fatally compromised (as is being falsely argued by many). Hamilton still had to push to stay within 5 seconds of Vettel. And Vettel still had to push to get outside 5 seconds back to Hamilton. The racing remained interesting to the end.A final point to consider, things are not always fair to one driver or the other in F1 racing. I remind the good folks of what has happened many times in the past whenwhere a race driver builds up a big lead on everybody else, just to have a safety car deployed as a result of someone else’s mistake ... which then forces all the cars to concertina behind the safety car. Is it fair? Nope. But it is racing. In fact, the deployment of the safety car often creates more excitement than the race itself. So what’s all this noise about the stewards having drained the excitement from Montreal 2019? Fiddlesticks!Pax
Mistakes are the result of hard racing and don't deserve to be penalised. Don't take my word for it, Nigel Mansell, Jenson Button, Martin Brundle, Mario Andretti and Mark Webber all agree that the penalty was unjustified. If that isn't good enough for you, take a look at Monaco 2016. Hamilton cracked under pressure, he does such things, locked up, cut the chicane, forced Ricciardo near the barrier, when he could have gone left, and got away with it. Where's the consistency? And if you really want to clutch at straws and say that Hamilton left Ricciardo more room and therefore didn't deserve a penalty then I have the following to say. Hamilton was travelling at a much slower speed, he didn't have grass on his tyres and he didn't have dirty air from backmarkers in front (That's not me being desperate Jolyon Palmer said so in his analysis). He couldn't move left to the degree that Hamilton did in Monaco because that was physically impossible. If you look closely you can see that he anyway compromised his normal racing line by not riding the kerb, otherwise he would have hit Hamilton. And finally, yes, it is possible that Vettel could have left slightly more room but if, as a racing driver in that kind of situation, he is expected to INSTINCTIVELY think "I haven't backed Hamilton into the wall but I still need to leave that extra half meter to meet the stewards stipulations." Then I'm sorry, the very point of racing is then called into question.
lewis is supposed to back out of the throttle because as soon as vettel leaves the track there should have been yellow flags.
So with this analysis would you agree that if Hamilton makes an aggressive move to block he should get a penalty? So no longer can a drive make a move to block? Because in my eye you agreeing with the stewards means no driver should make a blocking move. Didn't Hamilton in Monaco cheat by cutting corner? My eyes Hamilton gets free pass on everything while driving fstest car.
oh shut up you mercedes fanboy. hamilton should have been penalised 5 seconds if the seb one was.
Analysis of an incident that occurred between 2 drivers with 9 WDCs between them being carried out by a driver who can't handle pressure of a midfield team, who literally is the definition of bad driving in F1, backing the stewards decision is kind of predictable. Seb at least recovered the car, this Buffoon would have just spun on the grass and taken out the other car. Whatever his view on the decision, good on him, but at least bring some drivers who have been a little handy in a F1 car and not a complete F1 reject.
TheZookieMonster I’ve no issues with his views on the penalty you have one, I’ve got and to each his own. But this guy is a F1 reject and a shitbag of a driver, he was kicked out of the paddock. He shouldn’t go around doing these kinds of analysis. As for knowledge of rules and regs we have lawyers for those.Good day.
Poppycock. Number of WDC's does not translate into better knowledge of rules and regulations, or why we have them in the first place. Yours is a common logical fallacy: argument by appeal to authority. Specifically, an appeal to the authority of enumerated combined WDCs.The best race drivers have the best racing instincts, true enough. But best instincts do not translate into best judgments as to whether a penalty was deserved or not when Vettel decided to go lawnbowling whilst drawing a paycheck as a race driver. Best judgments require reasoning, not racing instincts.Pax
Total bullshit,at the speed Vettel was going,if he had hit the brakes on that patch of grass,he would have spun,out of control're-join'the track,certainly side ways,or backwards,hit maybe Hamilton but for sure create a nasty accident,or a pile up of up-coming fast cars,This is racing...NOT A WALK IN THE PARK,Vettel re-entered the"PISTA"like a CHAMP,the best he could.......Never watched VR46...Passing other racers.....?????..Right on the bumpers....Like a mad dog...!!!!!...THIS IS RACING.........FUCK THE STEWARTS....5 SEC Penalty was a shame.........And again,in favor of MERC..........And VETTEL is not even my favorite Driver.......
The penalty is a function of track clearance, not Vettel's intention. If Hamilton had been further back, say 3 seconds, then the track would have been clear when Vettel careered back onto it, intentional or otherwise. Clearness of track alone defines safe return. Heck, if Jethro Bodine from The Beverly Hillbillies was driving his jalopy a mere 0.03 seconds behind Vettel, the track would have likewise been clear.That said, it was Vettel's racing error that caused Hamilton to slam on his brakes thereby creating a flat spot on the Mercedes' tires, from which Hamilton would have lost grip in pursuing Vettel from that point onwards. So purely from a justice point, Vettel had to give up the position. And maybe that would have been the commensurate penalty. A pentasecond was probably too much.One other point, why is anyone suggesting that Hamilton could coast behind Vettel knowing that he had a 5-second cushion to work with, and that that effectively ruined the race? The race was still on. After all, Vettel still had the opportunity from up front to increase his gap to 5 seconds plus on tires not taxed by a flat spot. Equally, Hamilton still had to keep pace with a flat spot that had been forced by Vettel's mistake.Pax
I cheered when Vettel was penalized. Love watching Ferrari lose. Can't stand Vettel, he's an arrogant twat who's always had special treatment. And the Tifosi can suck it.
What a yoke ...😁😁😁🤣🤣🤣KARMAAlonso, italy 2017
FERRARI FANS =IRRATIONAL SECTA
Vettel should not have had a penalty in Canada, Verstappen should not have had a penalty in Suzuka. They overdrive, get off the track, get back on and race on. The driver behind knows what is going on. Hamilton should not have gotten a penalty in Monaco. When you get on grass, it's good, try to rejoin as quick as possible. If it's tarmac: you get to do this once, next time penalty. We want drivers to go.And let's hope the Mercedes team representative gets to go on the podium another time. She really pulled the shortest straw.