Nasr ran me off the track – Palmer

2016 Italian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

An unhappy Jolyon Palmer accused Felipe Nasr of forcing him off the track when the two collided on lap two of the Italian Grand Prix.

Both drivers retired following their collision at the exit of the Rettifilio chicane.

2016 Italian Grand Prix in pictures
“I was alongside Nasr through turn one with no problem then he decided to run me off the road in turn two,” said Palmer. “I can’t explain why he did that or imagine what he was thinking.”

“I went as far off the track as I could without risking a spin from the gravel and he still made contact with me. There was no racing room and both our races ended way too early.”

Nasr was held responsible for the collision by the stewards and given a ten-second time penalty as well as two penalty points on his licence. Nasr had already stopped in the pits when the penalty was announced, but Sauber sent him back out into the race so he could serve his penalty before retiring the car.

Nasr, who now has six penalty points on his licence, gave a different account of the collision: “I went into the first chicane ahead of Jolyon and when I was exiting the chicane I just felt a big hit on my rear tyre so that was it, race over.”

The stewards ruled Nasr “did not allow car 30 sufficient room on the outside of the corner, closing the gap when car 30 was alongside, therefore causing a collision”.

2016 Italian Grand Prix

    Browse all Italian Grand Prix articles

    Author information

    Keith Collantine
    Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

    Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

    25 comments on “Nasr ran me off the track – Palmer”

    1. “did not allow car 30 sufficient room on the outside of the corner”

      Hang on a minute, I thought you could run people off the road if following the racing line? I’ve been using this argument to defend Hamilton’s driving in the past but after this ruling I guess that doesn’t stack up?

      1. @john-h Not if they’re sufficiently alongside.

        1. @keithcollantine @strontium Hmmm, shouldn’t the driver on the outside be at least level in these cases? It’s this old chestnut again!

          Section 7 ( goes through such examples pretty thoroughly although I’m not sure a regulation backs any of this up.

        2. Exactly !
          Reason why as well that e.g. Verstappen last week in Spa should have had a penalty for running Raikkonen off track in similar fashion. So who can blame Nasr for trying the same himself this weekend, as he also want all the fame and headlines that Verstappen appeared to get by such driving.

          Good we had a great experienced driver-steward on duty this weekend!!

          1. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
            4th September 2016, 16:24

            @john-h Not if they’re sufficiently alongside.

            :D Says so… “Sufficiently alongside…”front tire, front wing, rear tire? all open to interpretation.”

            When Max is racing even alongside fully, is not enough.

        3. @keithcollantine
          True that, but wasn’t that the case in Canada, even more so than today? Why Hamilton wasn’t punished back then is – in my opinion – the biggest inconsistency in recent steward decisions. There’ve been a few other controversial decisions, but it all doesn’t add up when taking this incident into account. It looks as though they simply applied a different standard that day.

          1. I think the stewards actually go harsher on these incidents further down the field. F1 as a whole (or at the very least the interests involved with the backmarker teams) want these cars finishing and getting points when they can, so it makes perfect sense for those drivers to be discouraged from this aggressive behaviour.

            On the flip side when the top teams touch and have fierce battles it makes sporting headlines so it’s logical that the penalties wouldn’t be as enforced for them. Not openly encouraging the behaviour but doing so nonetheless.

            Just a thought anyway, wouldn’t surprise me.

      2. +1. I think the biggest difference is that there was a gravel trap, rather than an extended circuit like they’re used to.

        Although, it’s silly that they’re normally allowed to do it. It was only a matter of time before a collision occurred.

    2. They’re both horrible drivers so these two racing side by side… what can you expect? Nasr is definitely not an F1 caliber driver and Palmyer needs a better car to show some of his talent.

      1. I somehow feel very sorry for Palmer, because he has certainly shown better talent and racing skills than many other young F1 drivers that are so much luckier having a car placing them ahead of Palmer come Sunday race start. Afraid that this might be the only year we will see Palmer in F1? The car at your disposal is simply too much of a factor in F1 these days…

        1. Exceptional talent always prevalis and sometimes the “crap car factor” only highlightens the talent.

          Alonso x Marques at Minardi in 2001 is the perfect example

      2. What is all about? Nasr was faster, he did put his car in the inside line, he was on the race line with half of the car ahead. How is suposed for them to race? Asking to overtake? “Please can I overtake you my friend?” Palmer could have slowed down and maybe try something at the corner exit. It was a racing incident and that’s all.

    3. Extremely poor form by Sauber to take the car out just to serve the penalty. There’s an over-arching rule in most sports where you shouldn’t “bring the sport into disrepute” which I think these kind of actions definitely do.

      That being said I actually think Palmer’s a little in the wrong here, he was hardly side-by-side through the corner and just didn’t want to lose his spot to Magnussen behind by going off-track. Which by all rights I think he should have done.

      If you’re so far behind that your front tyre is going to touch their rear tyre, then the onus is on you to get out of the way, regardless of where on the track that takes you.

      1. I think Palmer should take 60% of the blame. The stewards again, made another daft ruling. My opinion is that it was a racing incident, caused by a weird chicane at the start of a race.

      2. “the onus is on you to get out of the way, regardless of where on the track that takes you.”

        This is the point though, he couldn’t have gone further out of the way without being off the actual track. Although I’ve only seen the head-on angle making it difficult to tell how alongside he was, if I saw it as I think, backing off would have resulted in a crash anyway due to the wheels being overlapped. When they came out of the corner it looked like Nasr was going to leave space, it was only after the corner he crowded Palmer off, so it was too late for him to back out.

      3. But I agree about how bad it was to bring him out just to take the penalty – which has made me think: if a driver comes in to serve a time penalty, does it count if they are stationary for five seconds then get pushed back into the garage? Do they have to return to the track first?

      4. @Tristan – You say “Extremely poor form by Sauber to take the car out just to serve the penalty. There’s an over-arching rule in most sports where you shouldn’t “bring the sport into disrepute” which I think these kind of actions definitely do.”

        With this kind of logic, what do you say about Mercedes changing engine three times to Lewis Hamilton’s car at Spa in order to avoid further penalties later in the season?

    4. This is silly. Not the verdict, I agree. But the inconsistency.

      Can you, or can you not run someone off the road? I think no, right?
      Does it matter if it’s at the exit? This says no. But so many other times, there is no consequence. Or do penalties only apply if there’s a collision?

      Bah. I have no idea what is ok and what is not.

      1. I agree @mike, Hamilton, Verstappen, amongst others, have done this type of move so often.

        The only thing I can think of is what I just said above, I think was only after they had completed the corner (and were pretty much straight) that the collision occurred (although I need to check the replay to be sure). But either way is still forcing a car off at the exit of the turn and it shouldn’t be allowed in my opinion.

    5. Any video of the crash? I only saw it once in the Grand Prix.

    6. This is a fair penalty. But others have avoided penalties for similar actions. This kind of driving from Nasr should be penalised, but it should ALWAYS be penalised.

      1. This is how you overtake, you put your car in the inside line and get along with it. Punishing for this is ridiculous. It should be punished when the driver put his car at a place that there’s no room or get out of the racing line on purpose.

    7. Maybe it just wasn’t very smart of Palmer to try to overtake Nasr on the outside in a corner with a gravel trap.

      1. Most people already forgot how a real overtake happens. That’s the only explanation I have for why they have punished Nasr.

    8. Interesting to see the roles reversed in Hungary 2014. Palmer didn’t seem to see any problem in running Felipe off the track at turn 1 in their GP2 days. Accused Nasr of “crying about it”.

      Admittedly there was no gravel pit immediately after the kerb, but it’s running your opponent off the track nonetheless.

    Comments are closed.