• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Deleted member 2254

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,467
You were literally calling for the FIA to be consistent with dishing out penalties just a few weeks ago, the 10 sec penalty that BOT received for colliding with RIC was consistent with other recent penalties, RAI - HAM Silverstone and VET - BOT Paul Ricard.

As for the collision yesterday between BOT and VET, I tend to agree that that was a racing incident. If anyone is to blame I'd put more of the blame on VET for turning in quite early, given that BOT was on the inside. Watched the replays, would possibly change my opinion if they showed the collision from on-board from BOT's car, but for some reason FOM don't bother showing that...


The guy in front can take the line he wants. He didn't brake check Bottas or anything, he closed the inside line because he was in front. Had Bottas not braked superlate (hence he was going straight) nothing would have happened, because Vettel was already 100% ahead.

And no, the penalties are inconsistent, because Vettel got 5 seconds and Kimi got 10 for the same thing. This incident is largely different from both, because whereas at the start it can make sense to brake late when side by side (though both moves were wrong), here Bottas tried outbraking a car that was literally in front of him, with no space to do so.
 

spuck

Member
Oct 28, 2017
189
London
So yeah, that 10s penalty was basically a no penalty considering he lost literally nothing. I wonder if the lack of serious consequences mattered: Vettel got this close to getting a puncture and losing 3 or more places in the process, while Ricciardo could also have broken a suspension or something.

As was pointed out some posts back, the penalty is a message to be more aware/act more cautiously in future. The consequences of the same thing happening again, resulting in the same penalty, could be far greater towards the end of the season for example. The penalty may not have changed the result, but not giving him any penalty would set a bad precedent, and giving him a more severe penalty would not be consistent with Kimi's from Silverstone and Vettel's from France.

Handing out penalties for the purpose of changing a result is not the correct mindset.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,812
The joke is that the accident with Vettel was the actually more penalty worthy crash of the both. Vettel was already a car length ahead of him in the middle of the straight while driving on the better racing line. The battle for position was already over.
 

Moss

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,207
The guy in front can take the line he wants. He didn't brake check Bottas or anything, he closed the inside line because he was in front. Had Bottas not braked superlate (hence he was going straight) nothing would have happened, because Vettel was already 100% ahead.

He can take the line he wants, but he took an unnecessary risk with his turn in point, just because VET was ahead doesn't mean BOT can just vanish from the track.

Which could only be possible with him driving a straight line and with more excess speed than Vettel.

How was he supposed to take the corner from that position and with the speed? He clearly lost his head there.

If VET went a bit deeper into the turn both cars could have easily made the corner, I wouldn't say BOT was pushing his luck with his braking point. That said we really need to see his on-board shot.
Handing out penalties for the purpose of changing a result is not the correct mindset.
Agreed.
 

Tygre

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,126
Chesire, UK
So yeah, that 10s penalty was basically a no penalty considering he lost literally nothing. I wonder if the lack of serious consequences mattered: Vettel got this close to getting a puncture and losing 3 or more places in the process, while Ricciardo could also have broken a suspension or something.
The penalties should usually not take into account the impact of the infringement, or the impact of the penalty itself. Consistency should be the aim.

The Vettel/Bottas crash could have had them both retire, or both be badly damaged, or one of them retire, or anything. None of that would change it being a racing incident not worth of a penalty.

Bottas could have been 4 seconds ahead of Gasly, 9 seconds, 11 seconds, or 40 seconds. None of that should change the 10 seconds added time he got for hitting Ricciardo.

The one exception is where an infringement directly leads to the keeping/gaining of a specific position. In this case it's appropriate that the punishment is the relinquishment of that position, as here there is a consistency of action / reaction.

Charlie Whitting came out and went over all this, but I can't find the interview.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,812
They established grid place penalties for the next race exactly for cases like Bottas, for punishment worthy actions in cases when a penalty in the same race would have no impact.
 

Easy Rider

Member
Nov 2, 2017
926
It was a racing incident. The way I see it Vettel squeezed Bottas unnecessarily to the inside, he had it done already there was no need to take that much risk pushing the situation like this. In the end he was a very lucky boy to scape with no serious damage.
 

Moss

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,207
Good news for any GT:Sport players, the Mercedes W-08 is coming as part of a free update in July.

Trailer.
 

DBT85

Resident Thread Mechanic
Member
Oct 26, 2017
16,301
One day I will understand how you can squeeze someone if you are one car length of someone.
Is there a shot showing clearly how far ahead he was?

I don't even think vettel was to blame, but you have to have the intelligence to realise that BOTs tyres are gone and he might not be able to slow down, so taking the apex as normal might not work well for you.
 

Easy Rider

Member
Nov 2, 2017
926
It's fairly simple, if the back of your car is just barely clear from the front of the other, you may want to avoid boxing this guy between the white line and your car as you turn in front of him, because if for whatever reason (worn out tyres, dirty side of the track, driving error or a bit of everything) the guy behind goes ever so slightly deeper than you, surprise.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,812
Vettel was clearly ahead ( car length) in the middle of the short straight. There was nothing for Bottas to gain so it wasn't even on theedge thing anymore but he just couldn't accept that he just lost a position.
 

Easy Rider

Member
Nov 2, 2017
926
I think you are very optimistic on what clearly ahead meant there. I would say just ahead, if at all with the whole car ahead.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,812
The linked YouTube video is pretty clear about it, there was nothing to archive for Bottas with it's late braking - the gap was even so big that that he couldn't even do some crazy dive bombing maneuver.
 

Bouniter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
163
The linked YouTube video is pretty clear about it, there was nothing to archive for Bottas with it's late braking - the gap was even so big that that he couldn't even do some crazy dive bombing maneuver.

I'm not quite sure what it is your watching but its pretty clear that Vettel doesn't get much if any further past Bottas than his rear wheel being level with Bottas' front wing this was a racing incident 6 of one half a dozen of the other. You are looking at this one with some seriously tinted glasses.

I'm also pretty certain you are misunderstanding the a "cars length ahead" term this means the rear of your car is a full car length ahead of the driver behinds front wing and is absolutely no where near the case in this incident.

The second incident where he crashed into Rici however was all on Bottas and a very silly and clumsy defending move, that he was rightly penalised for.

As was pointed out some posts back, the penalty is a message to be more aware/act more cautiously in future. The consequences of the same thing happening again, resulting in the same penalty, could be far greater towards the end of the season for example. The penalty may not have changed the result, but not giving him any penalty would set a bad precedent, and giving him a more severe penalty would not be consistent with Kimi's from Silverstone and Vettel's from France.

Handing out penalties for the purpose of changing a result is not the correct mindset.

Also this.
 
Last edited:

Versipellis

Member
Oct 29, 2017
40
After that crazy qualifying session, Ferrari achieved the most they could expect on a track like the Hungaroring. Maybe even more, because I expected Vettel to arrive 3rd at best.

I was surprised to see Merc pitting BOT to cover RAI, but it was probably because tire degradation was a bit unpredictable here (kinda short life on Friday, longer on Sunday...). So they wanted to have more options. They probably didn't expect VET to be so quick (outside of traffic) on worn out Softs. Bottas was going to lose 2nd place and that would have been a very bad call for Mercedes, if only Ferrari didn't help them out with their poor execution.

Ferrari strategy was good... on paper. The execution was very sloppy though, from the pit crew to Vettel himself. It is true that they lost 2 seconds in the pit, but VET made a mistake while he was pushing and lost 1.2 seconds in a sector during one lap. VET's mistake came eariler, so it was not that bad, but it certainly did not help having more margin over BOT. I'm a bit conflicted over the strategy team not calling VET in while he was losing seconds in the traffic, but they probably didn't want to risk with the Ultras. Wrong call, it looks like, as I am not sure a couple more laps on the Ultras would have been a problem at the end of the race (especially if he didn't have to follow BOT for 20 laps), but it's easy to say from your couch.

I don't think Vettel would have passed Hamilton. Softs were pretty consistent and Bottas became vulnerable only after 50 laps or so. Hamilton had much fresher tires. Of course, a bit of pressure on him could have changed things slightly, but I don't see VET being able to find the opportunity for gaining the top spot; HAM makes very few mistakes (if any) when he's in the lead. He can get nervous when he's trying to catch up, but not when he's in clean air.

Speaking of HAM. He is indeed lucky (not counting FIA conspiracy, lol?), but you also need to be able to seize the opportunity. And at the moment he's the best at doing so. During the Alonso vs Vettel era, it was VET (see 2010 and 2012).
Of course it's something that makes the fan of the other team filled with rage, but sometimes this is the way it goes.
But now, even when you see HAM starting at the end of the grid, you think "well, he might win this race anyway". With Vettel you think "Well, a podium would be a great result!". Just a feeling, of course.

Anyway, not a negative result for Ferrari after the qualifying session. But the championship chances are slipping away from VET. Constructors' looks like it's gonna be more balanced.
 

Moss

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,207
Random stats and facts time:
  • Mercedes recorded their 81st race win, they're now level with Lotus. Next target is Williams, who are on 114 wins.
  • Mercedes claimed their 77th pole position in the hybrid turbo era (2014 onward), it was also HAM's 77th career pole and his 77th front row start with Mercedes... May as well mention BOT runs #77... :P
  • HAM: 9th season he has set at least 5 pole laps.
  • HAM: Now has as many race starts with Mercedes as he had with McLaren, 110.
  • RAI: With his 99th podium finish, secured his 5th consecutive podium, and now has finished on the Hungarian podium for the 9th time.
  • VET: 106th podium finish brings him level with Prost.
  • HAR: Career best grid slot, with qualifying in 8th place in difficult (wet) conditions.
  • First time Toro Rosso managed to get both cars into Q3 at the Hungaroring.
 
Last edited:

Megasoum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,575
This is kinda crazy... Shit I'm super thirsty right now and I'm just sitting at a computer desk in an AC'd room lol

 
Oct 25, 2017
712
Rumour says Toro Rosso will be testing two different chassis during the Hungary test.

If true, it's got to be the first glimpse of Newey's Red Bull Honda rocketship. We already know the Honda has been running on RBT chassis dyno.
 

DBT85

Resident Thread Mechanic
Member
Oct 26, 2017
16,301
Yeah, like what about somewhere like Malaysia? fucking hell.
Its always the same. Tams and drivers will cut every possible corner to gain an advantage, which is part of the reason the rulebook is so insane because they have to be told exactly what the bare minimum is otherwise they'll compromise and try to gain an advantage.

Teams wouldn't be running halos, wheel tethers, hans, magic fuel tanks, etc etc unless it was mandated, which is why it had to be.
 

MortosDer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
602
I think it's good 1st has a big points bonus. Would have been the same with the old points system or other current series btw. Makes sense to me.

That should work for the driver who got first. Not for the team. One team has 2 cars on the podium, the other doesn't. The latter gets more points. Doesn't make sense to me.
Granted, it's just a minor nitpick, but still.

And on the 2003-2009 system they'd be even.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
26,925
maccavmercpid4a.png
 

DBT85

Resident Thread Mechanic
Member
Oct 26, 2017
16,301
That should work for the driver who got first. Not for the team. One team has 2 cars on the podium, the other doesn't. The latter gets more points. Doesn't make sense to me.
Granted, it's just a minor nitpick, but still.

And on the 2003-2009 system they'd be even.
There has never been an F1 season where 2+3 would get more than 1+5.

From 03-09 and from 50-60 they'd have gotten equal points but that's as good as it gets.
 
Oct 25, 2017
26,925
Yes, yes. Hence the "/mostly sarcasm." Points say a lot but don't tell the entire story, especially over a couple years.
Yeah there were a lot of caveats, I'm just glad a lot of the McLaren stuff is behind him these days, that team really did seem to waste him, hell they wasted Kimi as well. Their unreliability and strategy calls are laughable at times, happens to all teams, but they really could have gotten more championships when they were in their prime.