Three new video angles of Mexico’s turn one controversy

2016 Mexican Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Three videos shot by F1 fans at yesterday’s Mexican Grand Prix provide new angles on three controversial incidents at the first corner.

Pole sitter Lewis Hamilton cut across the corner after locking a wheel, prompting rivals including Daniel Ricciardo and Nico Hulkenberg to question why he wasn’t investigated for leaving the track and gaining an advantage.

Hamilton explained why he left the track at the start. “The right front brake disc had glazed on the formation lap and I couldn’t un-glaze it,” he said.

“I thought it might be OK but when I hit the brakes it just locked up as the temperature came up and I went flying across the grass. I was lucky to get across and rejoin on the other side of the track.”

Hamilton said he was concerned about whether he would be able to contined after locking up his front-right tyre. “I had a big flat spot – and I mean seriously big,” he said. “I could barely see the end of each straight with the vibrations and I genuinely didn’t know if my suspension was going to last.”

The other Mercedes also missed turn two as Nico Rosberg and Max Verstappen clashed in the first corner. The stewards cleared both drivers over this incident.

Further back in the pack Pascal Wehrlein’s race came to an early end after a three-way tangle with Esteban Gutierrez and Marcus Ericsson. Again the stewards investigated but took no action after ruling no driver was principally to blame.

2016 Mexican Grand Prix

    Browse all Mexican 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.

    91 comments on “Three new video angles of Mexico’s turn one controversy”

    1. So Hamilton didnt gain an advantage?….for the looks of it…he gained an advantage for about 40 meters

      1. Yep, no question Hamilton should’ve been penalized. He literally doubled his lead.

        Also no question Rosberg shouldn’t have been penalized. He was clearly ahead coming into the corner, until Verstappen nerfed him. By the time he’d recovered, he’d not gained any real advantage — he was about as far ahead as he was entering the corner where Verstappen hit him, and if anything with dirty tires will have been at a slight disadvantage.

        1. After seeing this, Ham and Nico deserve penalties.

          1. I fully agree +1

          2. Absolutely. Why weren’t they?

            and then Ves was…

          3. There’s no way Nico should’ve been penalised there… It’s clear VES forced ROS out of the track. ROS alternatives were:
            1- cut the corner;
            2- crash into VES;
            3- stop the car and wait for everyone to go past him.

            I Agree HAM should be penalised though.

        2. After seeing this, Ham and Nico deserve penalties. Rosberg also overshoots the corner. Even if max misses Ros, Ros will not be able to hold that position. If you watch, you see Ros actually make a decision. Stay here and rejoin and potentially lose more places or cut the grass like my teamate did and stay in second.

          1. Huge gains made by Hamilton cutting the corner. Definately should have had a penalty!

            1. I’ve already stated Ham needs a penalty. So does Ros. Gaining an advantage isn’t just about not being passed. It’s also cutting a corner to keep a position which is what Ros did. Both deserved penalties. Max does too for boning Ros. Again though, no way Ros holds that position even without Max hitting him.

            2. @jobosha, VES locked up ( look at the rubbersmoke) and was unable to avoid ROS. That’s the reason he was not penalized. ROS on the other hand decided to do what his teammate did and mowed the grass to his avail.

        3. There’s a parallel here between this situation and the USGP start last year. VES here does exactly what HAM did at the exit of turn 1 in Austin: run wide to try to force ROS off the track.* That move was widely lauded as a fine example of HAM’s aggression and racecraft—a hard move right on the edge, but a fair one. The difference is that here, ROS doesn’t back down, holds his line, and forces the contact with VES, which knocks him off the track.

          Anyone who thinks that ROS should not have been penalized has to ask themselves: if Turns 1 and 2 at Austin were laid out like they are here, would ROS have been justified in shortcutting the track to maintain his lead in 2015? And if so, does that mean that HAM’s move then was illegal?

          If you think what HAM did was okay but what VES did wasn’t, the only way out of the conundrum that I see is to argue that because ROS was actually shoved out of the way by contact, he has the right to ignore track limits to maintain his position. In other words, we reward him for holding his line in this game of chicken, and that once contact is made, VES is in the wrong. By contrast, HAM’s gamble paid off because he correctly guessed that ROS would yield, thus excusing him from any accountability. But this bothers me on two counts: first, it doesn’t sit right with me that the legality of a squeeze move should rest upon the other driver’s actions—either it’s legal to throw your car around as a mortal threat to other drivers or it’s not. And secondly, it gives an incentive to the outside driver to take a line that leads to contact, which defeats the point of the paved runoff in the first place: if it’s there to improve safety, then why penalize drivers for using it?

          In my mind, this just exposes the absurd and tortured logic that these paved runoffs—these unnatural runoffs—have led us to. I applauded HAM’s move in 2015, but in truth, the only reason it appears laudable was because that paved runoff was there for ROS to use in the first place. If that had been St. Devote with the wall looming large and he’d run ROS right into it, the move would be considered criminal. The only reasonable solution here is to return to natural track limits that penalize and deter off-track excursions, as they once did.

          But then since when has F1 been reasonable?

          (* And yes, I know that at Austin 2015, HAM was alongside ROS right off the grid, while VES gets alongside ROS here only under braking. But VES makes the apex—despite the lock-up, he remains in control and has every right to be alongside ROS because ROS has missed the apex and left the door open for him.)

      2. But was it a lasting advantage?
        That is the key. The answer is no. By mid lap that 4 or 5 second lead was back to half a second. Rosburg had caught him up by the time the VSC was deployed.
        A drivers is allowed to rejoin a track as long as it is safe and you dont get a lasting advantage.
        I would argue had he jumped on the brakes to stay on the track would have been dangerous knowing 21 other cars where steaming in behind. He probably could see Verstappens locked up in his mirrors.

        1. If he returned on track before the next corner he would have lost positions probably even a lot of them as it is a difficult spot to return however now he just skips the next corner holding position. I can understand why Max thought “well if that is allowed I might as well do the same”

          1. absolutely !
            after last year, HAM realised he had to keep track position at all costs, so went agricultural !
            At the point they all started braking for the corner, HAM was barely 1 car length ahead of the other cars but had no penalty for mahoosive mistake
            IMO, HAM should have been given 10 sec penalty @pitstops
            As for ROS, he really didn’t gain any time at all

        2. Conspiracytheoriesmakesmelaugh
          1st November 2016, 9:53

          “But was it a lasting advantage?
          That is the key. The answer is no. By mid lap that 4 or 5 second lead was back to half a second. Rosburg had caught him up by the time the VSC was deployed.”

          That is not the point. Is a bankrobber who drops the money, which is then returned to the bank by someone else, less of a bankrobber then a bankrobber who hangs on to the money?

          In the case of HAM and VES there is no telling if trying to keep the car on the track or return to the track closest to the point where they left the track would mean if other cars should/could have past them or not. Although I’m a huge VES fan, he left the track in a way that is not meant to be and therefore the 5 second penalty was correct. What is not correct is the fact that HAM got away with it. Or you punish them both or you don’t but what happend in Mexico was a HUGE failure of the FIA.

          1. The answer is “YES”, because he would have lost position otherwise.

            1. “But was it a lasting advantage?”
              That is the key. The answer is no.”

              Your answer maybe no, but the correct answer is yes.

              “By mid lap that 4 or 5 second lead was back to half a second. Rosburg had caught him up by the time the VSC was deployed.”

              so? the gap between VES and VET was also about the same compared to when they enterde the turn. The point is, that if this offtrack area had been gravel, HAM would have lost a lot of places – maybe end of race even. Same for Max. But Max was punished for it with 5 seconds, Hamilton not punished at all.

              So the correct answer is yes.

            2. The gap between VES and VET never dropped below a second again, indeed it only started to grow. So there was a lasting advantage gained by VES. For HAM, the gap was back down to under a second within two further corners – he clearly backed of to remove whatever advantage he would have gained.

              Even assuming you’re correct, and he should have a penalty, what penalty? 5 second? No difference. 10 second? He could have easily maintained that over Nico, so no difference. Give up some places there and then? How many? He should give up a place to Nico who also went off track?

              Hamilton did NOT gain a lasting advantage by cutting the corner, and it wasn’t deliberate. The was a problem – glazing – with his brakes, and he dealt with it as well as he could, and lifted off to remove the advantage he had gained. Perfectly reasonable and not deserving of a penalty. I think VES would have also avoided a penalty if he had “given back” the time he gained by cutting the corner.

          2. Humanjoystick
            2nd November 2016, 9:23

            VES also very clearly backed off after his stroll through the meadows to give back time, I still hear VET blowing his casket over it and naming it brake-testing.

        3. I think HAM did gain an advantage by not attempting turn 2, had he rejoined to attempt that corner he would have lost plenty of places. So for me a penalty is valid – 5s would have made it very interesting if HAM took it at the first stop.
          ROS is clearly pushed off by a not fully in control VES, who crosses completely over the racing line. ROS leaves VES much more than a car’s width inside but VES cannot stop in time. For me VES is more likely to warrant a penalty here.

      3. And 30 seconds later, the safety car came out and erased said advantage.

        1. It doesn’t matter. Ham did it intentionally. So as Ver played quite dark by pushing Rosberg off the track. If Rosberg would choice to stay within limits, then Ver would simply crash into him.

        2. Thats actually not correct. He intentionally drove straight over when he clearly could have slowed and turned in the run off or grass and mad the turn 2. It is not every other racers fault that his ‘Disc brake glazed over’ and he couldnt unglaze it. Run a bigger heavier brake and take the disadvantage. It is not every other racers fault that he outbraked himself. Evrey other racer slowed correctly and respected the track they are racing on.
          Hamilton gained track advantage which is more important than a lead that diminishes a little because of a Safety car.
          So many people are sick of the Louis Hamilton shaw and the English presenters and their refusal to talk about his indiscretions whilst they call Nico ‘The German’.
          Clearly needs a shake up and the best thing they could do is allow the fuel flow rate to be unlimited so we could at least see some racing again.

      4. Hamilton definitely does it intentionally and gains huge 1 sec+ advantage. Should receive 10 seconds for that. Verstappen definitely should receive 10 seconds for pushing Rosbers off the track. Back in Austria again, Rosbergs was penalized for that, despite breaks failure.

        So then it will be right – Rosberg should be above Hamilton and Vettel should be above Verstappen.

        1. Almost 3 sec gain actually

      5. Do you equally argue that those who, for example, cut the harbour chicane in Monoco (to stay ahead of a following car) should also be penalised?

    2. OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! (@)
      31st October 2016, 20:37

      Wow… F1 stewards are so one sided…

      1. Hope Brawn will change it. Past years steward were way too inconsistent in decisions. Past two years they were simply using their positions to do whatever they want.

        1. past two races*

    3. The one thing I find annoying is that all three films show a better perspective of T1 than the actual FOM material,…

      1. Exactly what I thought. Especially that second one.

        1. and its actually forbidden to take videos like this and publish it on Youtube or Instagram. so sad.

      2. Very true. Just the added distance gives much better context.

        And as Mike Key said, I wonder just how long these videos stay up before being pulled down by FOM.

    4. That footage of Hamilton shows just what a massive advantage he did gain; shooting in a straight line across the chicane he lost almost no momentum and gained both a better line into the next section of track but also shortened the track, making he was physically much further ahead than he would have been if he’d followed the chicane. There’s absolutely no justification for making allowances for “start line chaos” either, he wasn’t in danger of contact from other cars and he wasn’t involved in an incident. He just took the opportunity to ignore the track limits and gain a massive advantage.

    5. Massive gravel trap there for next year please!

      1. A piranha-infested moat would be more like it ;-P

        1. TacoofAdrenaline
          1st November 2016, 6:04

          best comment.

      2. Major re-design for turns 2 and 3 please!

      3. Meh. Tyre spikes.

    6. Vettel Idiot!! Do you remember melbourne 2009 and accident with polish driver Kubica????

      1. Vettel?

        1. yep, Vettel at his EEG-flatlining worst, why am I not surprised?

          The great Robert Kubica should have about 3 WDCs by now, I sorely miss him.

    7. I think before next years race they ought to consider constructing a wall of some kind along the edge of the track from the exit of turn 2 past the outside of turn 3 to the outer circuit barriers to prevent any drivers from cutting the course like Hamilton did. Then if a driver goes off at turn 1 they would have to turn around and rejoin the track before turn 2. I don’t think this would be massively dangerous because it is quite a low speed through turns 1 and 2.

      1. @rob91 the corner may be quite low speed but there doing 220mph going into that corner so a lot of runoff is needed in case of a brake failure.

        plus you also have bikes racing round there so removing runoff would not be safe for them.

        1. Jorge Olivier
          1st November 2016, 5:35

          A gravel trap in the right side of the runoff area between turns 2 and 3 would be enough, it won’t change anything safety-wise but drivers would be forced to return before turn two or at least cross very carefully thru the gravel trap -thus losing time-.

          1. A gravel trap can also be dangerous for bike racing. Remember what happenned to Wayne Reiney.

      2. Land Mines.

        1. Bernie E should be kept standing there during the race

          1. Jorge Olivier
            1st November 2016, 19:58

            Best proposal so far.

    8. HAM didn’t get penalized because that could have meant that ROS could have secured the title at Mexico and they want a last race fight for the title, so obviously the image of the sport is more important then consistency of the rules.

      1. Ros and Max deserved a penalty also, so it should have balanced out.

        1. Ros was forced out by Max

      2. I remember the Spa incident, ham got penalized for 30 secs for not gaining advantage at all… he played by the rules and got burned… so i guess he learnt to not play by rules, he play with his balls now :)

    9. Wow, just a perfect racing line from Verstappen.
      This individual drives like a snooker ball.

    10. Interesting that Rosberg essentially does the same thing, except he chose to do it, while Hamilton locked up and had a better excuse. Rosberg drove off the track when he could have stayed on. Hamilton locked and continued.

      I suspect that both drivers escaped punishment because the other did the same thing.

      1. How could Rosberd have avoided it? He was pushed out by Verstappen who after the contact kept driving on the left side on the track. If Rosberg had attempted to get back on the track he would have t-bonned Verstappen.

        1. Firstly Ros also overshot the corner, he wouldn’t have been able to hold position even without Max hitting him. Look at where he is and how slow he was going. He then goes to rejoin, seeing he’d lose a few positions he changes direction and cuts the track. Penalty deserved.

          1. @jabosha There are many cars that have extactly the same trajectory as Rosberg and they did not fail to make the corner or maintain position so I do not know why you say that Rosberg overshot it. Also, whether he would loose position or not if Verstappen had not hit him is irrelevant. What matters is that he would not have left the track if there was no colision. After that there was no room to get immediately back into the track without coliding with Verstappen again.

    11. Greetings fellas!
      I love these videos shot by the fans!
      Concerning the HAM and ROS manoeuvres: both diserved penalties, 1) HAM backing up is due to avoiding spinning wheels on grass (my opinion), the better moment to lift would be on the track, but as soon as he reaches the tarmac he doesn’t wait for the others (spoiling all the subtleness of the movement); 2) Rosberg made something even worse: he was trying to rejoin the track, but then he suddenly decide to not only swerve, but steer to the left avoiding the curb e staying ahead of VES.
      About VES holding back VET: once I played a NASCAR game and that sort of ‘play’ was in a list of team strategy. I have no opinion about Red Bull asking to its boys be a sidekick to each other, but I found that amusing.
      It IS weird too read some comments from ROS supporters (or HAM haters) accusing VES of touching Nico, when ROS did similar thing (to Kimi) he was acclaimed. And we still have to read some fellas asking for more consistency from the (different) stewards… Go figure. At least they have telemetry, let’s believe they are doing their best.

      1. You forget to mention that Rosberg was actually penalised for touching Raikonnen. I have no problem with what Verstappen did, but that does not mean that Rosberg should be penalised. Note that there was no room for Rosberg to join the track safely as Verstappen was still in the way.

        1. Of course he could. He would have lost some positions and that’s the reason he did not do it.

          1. He could not unless he completely stopped and waited for all cars to pass. What he did was not unsafe or anything. He simply rejoined the track in the quickest way possible without causing an accident. It is not as if he left the track by choice. This kind of move is very frequent in GP racing.

    12. Breaking news! Merc gets to drive thier own circuit. Seems that unforced driver errors (ham) and blatant deciding to cut the chicane (ros) should have some ramifications. So many of us got caught up in the Seb drama .. the first turn truth of both drivers so obviously circumventing the rules is crazy! At least ham made a mistake and should have been penalized for driver error.. Ros so clearly just chose to cheat when clearly could have rejoined on the circuit. Mind is blown

    13. I suggest people read my comments in this article to get a better idea of why Lewis didn’t get a penalty.

      With regards to Rosberg, He wasn’t given a penalty because he got shoved off by Verstappen.

      1. for those too lazy to click link.

        Speaking to somebody from FOM it seems that Charlie did take a look at it & noted that Lewis did lift off substantially immediately after he rejoined the track so seeing that in the telemetry as well as data from some of the 200m sector loops he felt that no advantage had been gained.

        Data from the timing loops & GPS apparently show that Verstappen was very slow through turns 1/2 due to him locking up & running wide & been offline through turns 2/3 which makes it seem like Lewis gained more than he did & also makes the lift that Lewis did do less apparent.

        Was also told that the in-car stuff from Lewis should end up on the f1 website/app in the next few days & that it will show the lift.

        Just got a bit more details on that.

        Using the timing & GPS data it normally takes 6 seconds to go from the apex of turn 1 to the exit of turn 3. On the 1st lap it took Verstappen 7.5 seconds & that 1.5 seconds extra caused by his error is what makes it loo as if Lewis gained a larger advantage than he did & also hides how much he backed off to give the time he gained back.

        The data also shows that had Lewis not made the error & gone through turns 1-3 normally he would have ended up about 1 second further ahead of the cars behind than he ended up been by going off & then backing off.

        1. And if gravel had been there .. would ros have chosen to turn left through it? It’s all a bit silly ..

          1. IF it were gravel trap HAM and ROS would be either DNF or if they managed to avoid the pit, rejoin into the pack while losing positions. Simple as that.

            The incident between VES-ROS caused by VES locking up and ramming into ROS would still be investigated and VES could potentially be given a 5 to 10-sec penalty, or even shrugged off as a “racing incident” label depending on what the stewards were thinking at this particular race.

        2. Just quickly, do you feel that a time advantage or disadvantage is the only factor in avoiding a first turn chicane? One driver made an error and went straight through avoiding any first turn calamities .. another driver had opportunity to rejoin on circuit it chose to cut chicane also to avoid place lost and more first turn calamities .. imho drivers should race on circuit and skillsets are magnified.

        3. @gt-racer
          “The data also shows that had Lewis not made the error & gone through turns 1-3 normally he would have ended up about 1 second further ahead of the cars behind than he ended up been by going off & then backing off.”

          That’s weird, and I question the methodology used to come to that conclusion. Just before the braking point, Nico pulled out of Lewis’s slipstream, onto the racing line, his front wing almost on the same level as Lewis’s rear wheel. ( Then, Lewis went through the runoff and came out metaphorical miles ahead (, seemingly even carrying more speed onto the next straight than he would’ve had if he had had to make turn 3. At the end of the second straight, he had a gap of 2.1 seconds (iirc).

          I don’t know his data, but boy, that must’ve been some impressive data that prove he would’ve gone through the first 3 turns over 3 seconds faster than his team mate (or anyone else, for that matter), especially considering that he was defending his position on the inside line …
          Sarcasm off.

          In all seriousness:
          I don’t think Lewis needed to be punished, but I can’t accept excuses that he supposedly didn’t gain an advantage. I can’t remember anyone gaining a bigger advantage anywhere, ever, so that makes me feel like I’m being lied to.
          But still, he was leading into turn 1, he most likely didn’t do it on purpose, and the Safety Car immediately leveled the playing field after that. A penalty would’ve had a lot more impact than what he did.
          But when one compares the turn 1 incidents involving Hamilton and Verstappen, every single aspect of Lewis’s offroad adventure is a step worse than Verstappen’s:
          Hamilton was only slightly ahead of his team mate before braking into turn one, while Verstappen was more than a car’s length ahead of Vettel (
          Hamilton flew over the grass and came back onto the track without having to worry about being challenged when he was the most vulnerable – i.e. with a flat-spotted tyre and grass sticking to his tyres.
          Verstappen actually attempted to make the corner, resulting in a much slower speed on the grass, and when he came back unto the track, Vettel was immediately behind him.
          So there’s definitely something wrong here. If Hamilton’s move is borderline O.K., how can Verstappen’s be penalised?

      2. @gt-racer – I’m a bit confused. I always thought it was Charlie’s job to only report these incidents to the stewards for the stewards to investigate, but here it appears that Charlie did some investigation of his own and decided no action was warranted.

        Also, I could be mistaken, but on the live feed I never recalled seeing a pair of messages stating “Hamilton under investigation” and a “No action warranted”, I only saw it for the Rosberg/Verstappen contact.

        1. @phylyp You don’t see the race control messages for every incident that gets looked at, You only tend to get the messages for the things that Charlie sends to the stewards as he has to put those things through the FIA system which gets put on the timing screens.

          In this case I gather that Charlie took a quick look at it & was satisfied that no further action was warranted so never sent it to the stewards. I also however gather that independently of Charlie the stewards did also give it a brief review while they were looking at the Rosberg/Verstappen incident & came to the same conclusion.

          With regards to Charlie, One of his job’s is to report things to the stewards for review but he can also take a brief review of some smaller incidents himself before deciding if it should be sent to the stewards or not.

          1. @gt-racer – Thanks for clearing up the bit about race control messages on the TV.

            I’m fine with Charlie playing a gatekeeper in terms of what gets sent through to the stewards. What does concern me is the extent of gatekeeping that he does. I personally think he should be a “noise filter” to keep out the obviously untrue/biased complaints, but shouldn’t no more beyond that, since he’s an individual and not a panel.

            In this instance, he should have just seen Lewis running off the circuit in a significant way (which violated the regulations), and bumped it up the stewards for a look-see; and the stewards should have formally investigated it. I don’t think Charlie should have looked anywhere beyond that to check for lasting advantages, etc. All the details around timing loops, telemetry and lasting advantage should have been assessed by the separate stewards panel.

            To me, this seems like Charlie overstepping his role.

            And while we’re at it, I’m not sure what the stewards were up to either:

            the stewards did also give it a brief review while they were looking at the Rosberg/Verstappen incident

            If the stewards looked at the Hamilton incident while investigating Rosberg/Verstappen, then it should have been only to see if Hamilton had any influence on the ROS/VES incident that was being investigated. Any conclusions they drew about Hamilton’s lasting advantage (or lack thereof) would have been irrelevant to the incident being investigated, once it was determined that Hamilton did not influence or cause that.

            If the stewards looked at Hamilton’s incident separately, then why were they doing so if Charlie had not forwarded it across to them.

            I’ll be the first to admit I’m nowhere near an expert on the procedures of how incidents are reported and investigated, but it does seem to have worked peculiarly at Mexico.

    14. The farce that is now formula 1 is well documented with this videos.

    15. Neil (@neilosjames)
      1st November 2016, 8:03

      Still feel the same way as I did from the TV pictures.

      Hamilton didn’t deserve a penalty because he backed off substantially after going off – he has a massive lead right there as he set off towards Turn 4, but by the time the VSC was out, Rosberg was on his tail.

      Rosberg didn’t deserve a penalty because Verstappen partially lost control and hit him, pushing him off the track. He then deliberately cut the corner – but that’s OK, because trying to stay where he was (a position he was put into by Verstappen losing control) would have meant driving over a bollard and a kerb at Turn 2, and probably whacking into Verstappen again.

      1. +1 to the description of both incidents.

      2. I have to agree with you. HAM didn’t gain a lasting advantage, and ROS had little choice because of VES actions. The stewards are also generally more lenient on “first corner” incidents.

        However, I still feel they should tighten up the rules on driving off track in general (and have been saying so for years). My own preference would be to change it around: Rather than a penalty if they gain a lasting advantage, penalise if they don’t get a disadvantage. Exceeding track limits should always penalise the driver somehow, as the race should take place within track limits.

        Personally, I would be in favour of a technical solution (e.g. engine power cut if outside the limits) rather than applying time penalties etc, but it needs to be consistent and obvious to the fans, however it is done.

        1. You could argue that the dirt picked up by the tyres, and the high risk of bodywork damage is that disadvantage, not to mention the flat spot caused by the initial lockup.

      3. If you are outside the playing field you should not be able to gain any advantage. (all sports use this!! Football, golf, Judo etc..)
        You left the track and should go back to the nearest point to rejoin the track. Even if it would mean you have to stop. But tracklimits are a total joke at the moment. Some people even use the runoff areas to pass cars.
        HAM left the track ( so did ROS and VES later) and should rejoin the track.. the grass is only to avoid accidents and can and should never be part of the racetrack.

    16. Hamilton and Rosberg both didn’t receive a penalty for clearly cutting turn 2. Hamilton didn’t receive a penalty because according to the stewards he didn’t gain a “lasting advantage”, but this depends on your reference. The reference that the stewards took was that Hamilton entered turn 1 just ahead of Rosberg and he entered turn 4 just ahead of Rosberg, therefore he didn’t gain a lasting advantage. But this reference makes absolutely no sense to me: Hamilton made a major mistake by missing his braking point (yes he glazed his brakes, but tough luck, brake earlier then) so he should have bee penalised for it.

      My reference for gaining a “lasting advantage” is ‘taking the apex of turn 2’. Hamilton could have made the apex of turn 2, but for that he needed to brake in a straight line, take to the run-off area, turn around and rejoin the track between turn 1 and turn 2. It’s tough to say, but I guess he would have lost 5 to 10 positions by doing so. With this reference, he gained a “lasting advantage” and then some. That’s a clear penalty, in my opinion.

      The same reasoning holds for Rosberg: he could have made the apex of turn 2 as well, but by doing so he would have lost 1 or 2 places. Again, with the reference of ‘taking the apex of turn 2’ he did gain a lasting advantage as well. The weirdest thing is that when Verstappen was defending from Vettel, suddenly they changed their reference and they gave him a time penalty – why the inconsistency?

      So how to fix this so that it doesn’t happen next year? Gravel traps would work, but a much easier solution is a rule that any car that leaves the track at turn 1 must rejoin the track before turn 2 (similar to turn 1 at Sochi).

      1. @andae23 – very good point about the frame of reference for defining a lasting advantage.

        Gravel traps would work, but a much easier solution is a rule that any car that leaves the track at turn 1 must rejoin the track before turn 2

        There was already a bollard inside the apex of turn 2. However, I don’t recall any mention of a rule associated with that (unlike Sochi) so I’m not sure why that was there in the first place.

    17. I concentrated on the mid-pack crash and from that angle I think it was good decision to not give any penalty for GUT/WEH/ERI crash.

      1. @blue – could you please walk me through it? And which video in particular, since I struggled to see the details in the videos?

        When I saw the race on Sunday, it felt like the collision was initiated by Gutierrez, so I’d be happy to get a fresh and better perspective on it.

    18. Neither Hamilton nor Verstappen should have had penalties. Rosberg, maybe. There are many tracks with highly convenient run-off at the first turn. At some of these tracks, like Monza, Valencia, etc., speed-bumps, big curbs, or Styrofoam or whatever were put in to abate drivers who went off, intentionally or not. Some tracks have no such features, e.g., Spa or Hockenheimring. In no case do the rules and practice punish people who inadvertently go off at turn 1, who do not hit or seriously impede others in going off, and who then rejoin safely. Hockenheim, for example, doesn’t even have grass to keep people from accelerating back onto the track at full speed.

      The one possible exception would be where a driver avoids or completes a bona fide passing attempt by intentionally going off. This is where the Hamilton-Spa rule comes in (with the requirement of getting back behind for two corners. Although, again, I think it is an open question if that rule applies at a start. If that rule applied at the start, I think Rosberg should have yielded for a couple corners or faced a penalty, but that is debatable. It would be a potential extension of the Hamilton-Spa rule and it would create a new precedent for policing offs at a start that may not be at all what people want.

      Hamilton and Verstappen were not involved in a pass of some kind and in at least the latter case it did not help at all—Verstappen didn’t go into the corner under a threat of a pass and came out with even less margin on Vettel. Hamilton only came out looking so good because cars in positions 2 and 3 collided.

    19. The advantage HAM got is ridiculous. He made a mistake and profited from it. He overshoot the corner, or his brakes were ‘glazed’ and not functioning properly. Either way he had to pay for it.

      What I see is that the stewards basically didn’t want to be responsible for a decision that would certainly compromise the championship. A 10 second to HAM would hand the victory and the trophy to ROS with 2 races to go.

    20. I understand why VES thought he was ahead of ROS and was not at fault (his right wheel was ahead and he did see ROS little bit behind him from his angle). But I also understand why ROS chose to get off track: there was no way back without danger.
      So no penalty was maybe right decision to even things out for the contact that pushed ROS off track. And Alonso didn’t get penalized for it last race.

      Hamilton should have been penalized for sure and ROS would have won.
      NO ADVANTAGE??? Come on!!!

    21. Hello everybody! I was at turn 1 during the Mexican Grand Prix last Sunday. I took this video with my cellphone of the first lap:

      1. Great thanks.

    22. I know I may get destroyed for this but the first video looks like where rosberg rejoined he caused a small concertina and that is why they all bunched up and we had the contact at the back? Not taking away anything from other incidents but rejoining slow infront of everyone is a little thick.

    Comments are closed.