Hartley “should have cut the chicane like the others” at the start

31 comments on “Hartley “should have cut the chicane like the others” at the start”

1. 

   Jamie-er
   27th June 2018, 0:14

   Amazing isn’t it, all this talk before the race about how much of a problem track limits were going to be, and they did nothing to prepare for it. And they want to us believe F1 is changing. Please, it’s the same every time
2. 

   Toxic
   27th June 2018, 0:56

   Hate this quote about the consistent penalties… They shouldn’t be consistent, they should be fair!
   1. 

      ColdFly (@)
      27th June 2018, 8:45

      agree!
      And a major prerequisite for ‘fair’ is to have the same penalty for the same offence in the same circumstance (a.k.a. ‘consistent’).
      1. 

         Jere (@jerejj)
         27th June 2018, 9:47

         @coldfly Yeah, but that isn’t always possible as even if the offense/incident itself was the same, there could be different factors surrounding them, which can/could make them less comparable, and, therefore, lead to the need of a different outcome by the Stewards, like, for example, in the case of Hamilton and Verstappen cutting through the run-off area of turns 1-3 in Mexico in 2016. Yes, consistency is the key to things in general, but not always can two or more similar type of scenarios be treated equally.
         1. 

            ColdFly (@)
            27th June 2018, 10:43

            I think we are of the same opinion, @jerejj.
            As you noticed I included “in the same circumstance ” to reflect your “there could be different factors surrounding them”; it’s not just the action by itself.
            1. 

               Jere (@jerejj)
               27th June 2018, 11:28

               @coldfly Oh, I guess I didn’t pay enough attention to the ‘in the same circumstance’ part then, LOL.
   2. 

      James
      27th June 2018, 9:58

      The problem is that ‘fairness’ is subjective, whereas consistency can be measured by judging whether a penalty is consistent with previous cases, similar to case law setting a precedent.
3. 

   Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
   27th June 2018, 1:52

   In hindsight I probably should have cut the chicane like the some of the others did who made up places doing it.

   At a recent GP a driver spun out, and in doing so applied full throttle to the engine, spinning the wheels, thereby creating a large amount of smoke that obscured the spinning car and the track, and some drivers drove into the smoke and ruined their race when they collided with the spinning car. So saying it is wrong to deviate off the track near a chicane isn’t necessarily the right thing to do. If a driver has a choice between a large cloud of smoke that obscures what’s ahead, carnage, a collision, etc or not going through the chicane, then I think one has grounds to expect leniency from the Stewards if you didn’t stay on the track. If, on the other hand, one hasn’t got a reason to deviate off the track but simply chose to do it with the aim of gaining some places, then isn’t that cheating? If it is, then why should you expect any sympathy if it comes to the attention of the Stewards?
   1. 

      kpcart
      27th June 2018, 3:57

      Verstappen made no effort to make the turn, he gain a huge advantage. In Monaco you can’t shortcut, that’s why he keeps crashing there.
      1. 

         Bart
         28th June 2018, 10:43

         You should watch his onboard.
         Vettel and Bottas blocked out the track completely within 0.5 seconds of hitting each other. It was go off or crash.
         So he went off and rejoined well after Hamilton.

         What advantage did he gain?
         He was well into 4th before Vettel hit Bottas, who both spun.
         Did he have to let the cars behind past, many of whom also went off?
   2. 

      lee1
      27th June 2018, 9:46

      Absolutely. However the nature of the track meant that the deviation was more like carrying on racing off the track and cutting part of the course while doing so. The tracks huge, flat, tarmaced run offs meant that the cars simply carried on full speed across the run off as if it was simply part of the track. At most tracks it would not be possible to make such a huge short cut.
   3. 

      Jere (@jerejj)
      27th June 2018, 9:48

      @drycrust Agreed.
4. 

   ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
   27th June 2018, 3:30

   Newey was right about Mobil 1 access to engine development. Just like Mercedes-Petronas or Ferrari-Shell. Oil manufactures is the last defender of F1 when the world prepared to be more electric.

   With Aseel Al-Hamad in recent test, maybe Renault should really consider Renault-Aramco F1 Racing. If only they could asked for 1% of the 5% of Aramco shares on anticipated IPO, it would be 0.9 Billions.
5. 

   Todfod (@todfod)
   27th June 2018, 6:38

   What I find surprising is that Mobil 1 was with McLaren Honda in 2015. I don’t know if Mobil1 had that kind of influence on design of the PU or much influence at all in the matter. All we know is that they left after the 2015 season. Everyone thought that Mobil1 left because Honda was embarrassing them, yet 4 seasons later, they’ll now be working with Red Bull with Honda again, and this time apparently they’re in a happier / optimistic place.

   Makes you wonder if they actually wanted to get rid off McLaren… and just used Honda as an excuse to get out.
   1. 

      BasCB (@bascb)
      27th June 2018, 9:34

      They went with a team that was winning @todfod, simple as that. I am sure that if the Honda deal turns out to be bad, Mobil 1 will reconsider renewing the agreement in the future.
6. 

   Johnvl
   27th June 2018, 8:31

   Brundle:“Max Verstappen drove another fine and well-measured race and understandably didn’t waste the opportunity to return some of the stick Seb sent his way when Max was running into things most weekends for a while.”
   Does he really not understand Max was trolling the Journalists? What a dumb statement.
   1. 

      BasCB (@bascb)
      27th June 2018, 9:35

      He was trolling Vettel too though
      1. 

         Johnvl
         27th June 2018, 10:34

         Max also said: “And then, of course, Seb shouldn’t do anything [different] , and just drive again and learn from this and go on.”
         I think he was actually supporting Seb.
   2. 

      Todfod (@todfod)
      27th June 2018, 9:39

      Looks like Brundle is trying to sensationalise the relationship between Max and Seb… honestly, I agree, it was a jab at the press and nothing more.
      1. 

         RB14
         27th June 2018, 11:05

         Were any of you armchair bandits in the room then?
         1. 

            Johnvl
            27th June 2018, 11:44

            The press room? No, it was broadcast on TV.
         2. 

            Todfod (@todfod)
            27th June 2018, 13:50

            Take a look for yourself sweetheart
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVKV1KdooYk
      2. 

         Joao (@johnmilk)
         27th June 2018, 13:13

         that is sky F1 in a nutshell
      3. 

         Asanator (@asanator)
         27th June 2018, 13:29

         @todfod Agreed! It was completely a jab at the press, not Vettel. Verstappen’s point was that there are double standards applied by the media. He was pointing out that as Vettel had caused a collision, and was questioning why they weren’t going and asking him if he should ‘change his driving style’ etc. that he was being subjected to only a few races beforehand.

         I must say, SKY’s coverage on this was appalling, they way they tried to twist what he was saying into a dig at Vettel. Hamilton, fair enough, he couldn’t resist making the usual and obvious media play against Vettel and Anthony Davidson’s turn around from ‘racing incident but probably worth the 5sec penalty’ to ‘Oh it definitely wasn’t enough, 10 seconds at least surely’ as soon as he knew Hamilton was appearing on the program was irritating not more than a little bit embarrassing/cringeworthy.
7. 

   Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
   27th June 2018, 8:32

   I agree with COTD. Although I think Ericsson is currently having a slump in qualifying, he was very close to Wehrlein in this area. The closest pair of team mates average gap wise on the grid. I do think the Sauber is also getting better. Meaning if you mess qualifying up like Ericsson has several times now, the gap between him an Leclerc looks huge. I think both managing to step up at least one qualifying session also shows Sauber is improving. This is a good thing.
   1. 

      Phylyp (@phylyp)
      27th June 2018, 9:46

      @thegianthogweed – I agree, +1 to you and the COTD in terms of providing context around Wehrlein.
8. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   27th June 2018, 9:51

   The drivers who left the track had a valid reason for doing so and made sure that they don’t gain an advantage from it.
   – I agree with the COTD, and I also agree with Brundle concerning the type of penalty Seb received or should’ve received.
   1. 

      Asanator (@asanator)
      27th June 2018, 13:34

      @jerejj

      I also agree with Brundle concerning the type of penalty Seb received or should’ve received

      Yes although it is funny how no-one (not even Sky’s commentators/pundits) seemed to think it was a lenient penalty until it became apparent that Vettel would definitely finish ahead of Bottas. So it probably was the correct decision by the stewards. It was a first lap, first corner collision. I don’t recall anyone getting a 10 second penalty for a first lap collision in a very long time. Why should it start now.
      1. 

         petebaldwin (@)
         27th June 2018, 13:49

         As with everything, if a first lap incident is a 10s penalty then fine – all 1st lap incidents get one. If others get 5s, Vettel should that.

         The position three other car finishes in is irrelevant. What if the car retires? Should the other get an immediate black flag?
         1. 

            Patrickl (@patrickl)
            27th June 2018, 17:19

            @petebaldwin Not all first corner incidents are this blatant though.

            It also nonsense that all incidents should get the same penalty. We have seen drivers getting a race ban for a first corner incident, but also “Mwoah it’s just a racing accident”.
9. 

   Man United_Vettel (@siegfreyco)
   27th June 2018, 14:44

   Why don’t they just prescribed slow routes using bollards for those who cut the chicanes like in Singapore turn 1? That will then ensure that those cut the chicanes are not doing it for an advantage but rather to avoid an accident. They would lose time too as it is a slower route. For example, those who cut turn 3 should go around a bollard located on the outside of turn 5 much farther than the hairpin.

Comments are closed.