Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, 2019

Hamilton confirmed as winner despite Ferrari plan to appeal

2019 Canadian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Ferrari has notified the FIA it intends to lodge an appeal against Sebastian Vettel’s five second time penalty which cost him victory in the Canadian Grand Prix.

However the team cannot overturn the penalty which cost Vettel what would have been his first victory of 2019.

The stewards ruled Vettel “rejoined the track at turn four” in an unsafe manner” after going off and “forced car 44 [Lewis Hamilton] off track”. His five second time penalty dropped him from first to second place in the race.

Competitors have the right to appeal decisions as noted in the stewards’ decision handed down to Vettel.

However the five-second penalty imposed on Vettel, under article 38.3 (a) of the sporting regulations, cannot be overturned. Article 17.2 of the same regulations notes “appeals may not be made against decision concerning the following: a) Penalties imposed under Articles 38.3 (a).”

The FIA has issued the final classification for the Canadian Grand Prix with Hamilton listed as the winner ahead of Vettel.

Don't miss anything new from RaceFans

Follow RaceFans on social media:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2019 F1 season

Browse all 2019 F1 season 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.

77 comments on “Hamilton confirmed as winner despite Ferrari plan to appeal”

  1. Controversy isn’t good for the sport, but great for ratings. Netflix and Liberty must be pleased.

  2. I already see the only (and glorious!) solution FIA’s going to come up with. Asphalt the grass runoff!!! That’s probably the only thing we can expect from these clowns.

    1. VET was forced into a mistake and cut the corner, didn’t slow down but drove across the racing line into HAM’s path, not only keeping his position but forcing HAM to brake to avoid the collision. The 5 seconds penalty may have been too lenient.

      1. @greenflag
        you are Red Flagged instantly! wait for the backlash!

        1. From what I’m reading many agree with me. I’m not saying Vettel shouldn’t have tried to get away with it. That’s racing. But he shouldn’t complain when he’s duly penalized. I understand fans getting upset, but fans get upset when an offside goal is disallowed in soccer.

      2. THIS!
        Vettel made a costly mistake that should’ve resulted in him losing the position on track. Instead he made every effort to scramble back onto the track. This is why the rule exists. Why is it when cars run off track they have to go around a bollard before reentering? To cost them something on asphalt run offs and ensure a safe re-entry onto the track. Vettel made a mistake, cut the corner and rejoined in an unsafe manner. He made no attempt to slow down and cut right across the track. He had no regard for safety.

        1. Alexander Nicklisch
          10th June 2019, 2:58

          Have you noticed that almost everyone who knows anything about racing disagrees with you…even Webber (not exactly a fan of Vettel’s) thought the decision was ridiculous.

          Plus, Brundle twice stated that Vettel had actually not made a mistake entering the corner, the car’s rear snapped and he showed some good car control to keep from touching either barrier.

          So perhaps you should measure your opinion a little. As a fan of motor racing, I think today’s decision ruined one of the few great races that F1 has served of late.

          1. Or you could take the opinion of the best driver of the lot, who happened to see the incident at the closest range: Hamilton himself. Interestingly Lewis said that had the positions been reversed, he’d probably have done the same as Vettel, not lifted and tried to squeeze the driver behind to keep first place. But he added the important element. Had he known (in the real incident) that Vettel wouldn’t be penalized for reentering the track unsafely, he wouldn’t have lifted today and would have gone for the gap on the right. And they’d probably have crashed. Kidding? I don’t think so.

          2. Make no mistake: every one of those drivers would have felt differently (and wouldn’t have been as calm as Lewis was about it either) if they were in Hamilton’s shoes. It’s naive to believe otherwise, IMO. They’re just commenting now from a spectator’s perspective & wanted to see them fight tooth & nail down to the wire. Their real gripe is that they felt they were robbed of a grandstand finish, rather than Vettel was blameless. Most of the comments I’ve seen are against the particular penalty, they don’t insinuate that Vettel did nothing wrong. The rules are quite clear, however & have been for quite a few years… everyone is free to dislike it, but today the stewards acted accordingly to the letter of the rule book.

          3. Montréalais (@)
            10th June 2019, 3:47

            +1 Alexander Nicklisch

            @david-br I am not accepting testimony from either the defendant nor the plaintiff. Both Vettel and Hamilton (and their respective teams) have competing vested interests in this question. The experienced drivers I heard commenting watched the same overhead views that I saw on TV and they noted that the return to the track and across the racing line was not under control, so there was no visible intent to commit and infraction. I bow to their expertise. The penalty should not have been levied.

          4. Plus, Brundle twice stated that Vettel had actually not made a mistake entering the corner, the car’s rear snapped and he showed some good car control to keep from touching either barrier.

            The rear snapped or vettel lost the rear. Same thing. What you are saying is a bit like saying it is not my fault for spilling coffee on the floor. It is the cup’s fault.

          5. @david-br I wonder what Hamilton would have to say if he was shown a replay of his driving against Riciciardo in Monaco in 2016…exactly the same incident and no penalties were issued. It wasn’t even investigated.


          6. @geemac If you think they’re exactly the same, I don’t think we’re going to get very far in this discussion.

          7. @fluxsource I’m keen to hear how they are different. Unlike most F1 fans these days I like to hear all sides of the debate. If after hearing your explanation I hear something that makes me realise I am wrong, my opinion will change.

          8. @geemac The two clearest differences are that Ricciardo wasn’t along side, and Hamilton left a cars width. Coupled with Monaco incident being at a much slower corner, although Ricciardo was pretty close to the back of Hamiltons car, the slower speeds made is far less of an issue.

        2. Monsieur Plodd
          10th June 2019, 4:41

          No bollard.

  3. Oh great.

  4. “Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are ‘not susceptible to appeal’,” a statement from the FIA’s Court of Appeal said on Tuesday.

    “The competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes appealed the Steward’s decision before the International Court of Appeal in a hearing in Paris on September 22nd.

    “Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible.”

    …. I believe there’s a precedent here.

    1. Precedent? Of what? Of appeal? Or decision?

      Ferrari of course can appeal, but Court will again (probably… should) decide that the appeal “is inadmissible”.

      1. Maybe ferrari is planning to veto that definition.

      2. @dallein, grat is arguing that it is likely to set a precedent for proceedings in this case, which is that any attempt to appeal against the penalty will be dismissed by the court as “inadmissible” and no hearing would be held.

    2. The key words here are “drive through penalty” That’s not the type of penalty we’re dealing with here

      1. Was a 30 second penalty at the time, but article 152 basically says any penalty handed out during a race can’t be appealed.

    3. The key words here are “drive through penalty” That’s not the type of penalty we’re dealing with here

      1. My thinking too. A drive through penalty has to be conducted within the race in which the offence or infringement occurred. It just isn’t logical to sit down two months later to decide whether or not that penalty is right or wrong or too harsh or too lenient.
        In this case though (Sebastian’s deviation from the race track), this was a time penalty, so one could retrospectively (I think that’s the right word) alter the race results. However, I wouldn’t agree with doing such a thing. I believe Ferrari should thank the Stewards for their decision and leave it at that.

        1. @drycrust, as noted in the article, the regulations explicitly state that the teams cannot appeal against a time penalty – once the stewards have decided to issue that penalty, there is nothing the team can do about it.

          There was, in fact, a recent example from Formula E of a team trying to appeal against a time penalty, which was also rejected. Because the time penalty itself cannot be appealed against, they tried to instead argue that the way in which it had been handed down was incorrect, thereby invalidating the penalty that way – that attempt was also immediately thrown out, with the ruling stating that the team were abusing the appeals mechanism to try and overturn a penalty that wasn’t appealable.

          That is why grat was raising the example of that drive through penalty, which was also a penalty which the regulations stated could not be appealed against. In that instance, it was the retrospective drive through penalty, which was given in the form of a 25 second time penalty, that was imposed on Hamilton after the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix had finished – i.e. similar to the type of penalty that Vettel received.

          If Ferrari do try and go through with this – and in reality, I suspect they will quietly drop this within a week or so once the media attention has died down – the appeal court will almost certainly state “the regulations state this type of penalty cannot be appealed against and therefore the case is inadmissible”, much as they did with that case.

  5. Seriously, are FIA going to do this to Hamilton again? Yes, lousy for Vettel – even if the penalty was deserved – to have to cross the line first knowing he didn’t actually take first place. But if FIA accept the appeal and give Vettel the victory, this will be the second time Hamilton has celebrated a race victory on the podium only to have it taken (by Ferrari/FIA) long after everyone has gone home.

    1. @david-br
      Hamilton has been gifted plenty of victories by the FIA since Spa 2008. Monaco 2016 (should have been penalized), Mexico 2016 (should have been penalized), and now the fluke today. It’s about time Lewis fans stopped crying about that race.

      1. @kingshark you seem to be there only one crying here. Non-stop, even.

  6. @kingshark i find it very interseting you say about Monaco 2016 but then at the same time you feel Vet should not have a pentalty. I reckon you are BigJoe mate. Just face it Vettel cracked again when Lewis is near him it happens all the time. You keep saying about Hamilton lock up, Hamilton knows you can get away with it there.

  7. Interesting video from Peter Windsor, who I usually find an oasis of insight and sanity. So I was kind of disappointed this time as he disagreed with the penalty for Vettel. Only he then proceeds to read the incident precisely the same as I did – Vettel could have avoided cutting across Hamilton by lifting and steering left, only he didn’t because he wanted the place! And Hamilton had to lift/brake to avoid a collusion. So Vettel did reenter in a dangerous manner (onto the racing line, and deliberately). The stewards read the regulations correctly. Only PW thinks that Vettel’s kind of driving should be allowed and the rules changed. Personally I don’t agree. It’s the same as cutting a corner and getting an advantage and being allowed to keep it.

    1. Neil (@neilosjames)
      10th June 2019, 1:11

      I saw it that way too – I think Vettel knew what he was doing. But, had I been a steward I would have voted for ‘naughty but no penalty’ because it wasn’t that bad. Just a little wrist-slap reprimand.

      1. @neilosjames In some ways the teams are their own worst enemy. Racing has become over-regulated perhaps, but when teams appeal and counter appeal – i.e. refuse to accept the stewarding decisions – that leaves the stewards and FIA having to bolt down everything and stick to the regulations to try to ensure parity of decisions, at least. Imagine instead if there was a ‘live referee’ to make quick decisions and the teams simply had to accept them – accepting that they may get things wrong but these errors average out over time. So in this case, Vettel could simply have been told within a few corners to give the place to Hamilton as the penalty. To my mind, that would have been fair and would have allowed him to chase down Hamilton for the win instead.

        But choosing between no penalty and the 5 second, it was correct. He deliberately blocked Hamilton and reentered the track dangerously to do so. I seriously thought the penalty was a no brainer at the time and couldn’t understand the fuss.

        1. The incident occured lap 55, stewards decision after review of the data & cam recordings – lap 57/58 – by which time Hamilton had fallen behind to approx 2. 5 seconds. Its clear the stewards took their time to review all available evidence.

          A lot of this is because of the commentators who prejudged the outcome as a ‘racing incident’, when the truth is it was another rash ‘Vettel incident’.

          1. Ajaxn
            I’m not opposed to the stewards reviewing the incident properly. But if people are going to complain about ‘real racing’ not being allowed, some self-reflection is required. Remember when Hamilton got penalized at Japan 2008 for outbreaking himself at the first corner? Nothing actually happened, save for Kimi losing a place or two as he went into the runoff for a moment. Yet penalized he was. Or the rules introduced for weaving out of the way of a car behind to break a slip-stream (not to block). These penalties and rules were introduced because of teams, Ferrari especially, moaning about nothing in particular (i.e. nothing happening on track save for racing) solely to get some advantage from race control. So I’ve very little patience, none in fact, for Vettel and Ferrari complaining about over-regulation now.

      2. You only see it that way because there was no collision. Your kind of thinking is why rules on safety need to be strictly enforced. You’re saying “it wasn’t that bad”. But what if it was? What if they collided and it ended both their races? Would we be saying Vettel rejoined unsafely and deserves a punishment then? The rules aren’t enforced by the result but by the offense.

        1. So much sense in this post.

    2. I sent that Peter Windsor video to my siblings earlier (we’d been debating the incident during our normal post race family debrief). I’m with Windsor in that if it was qualifying (or if he had a decent gap) Vettel wouldn’t have been on the throttle while going across the grass. He would have slowed down & rejoined way left. He kept his foot in it & took the shortest route across because he knew Lewis was coming & would pass him. Lewis had to squeeze right up to the wall & stand on the brakes to avoid contact. For the stewards to be ok with that, they’d have to pretend that no rule about rejoining the track safely exists.

      1. Exactly this is the kind of behavior the rule was put in place to discourage. If not for this then for what? How close do we cut it before a crash actually happens.

      2. Exactly, Verstappen got a 5 second penalty for pulling the exact same manuveur on Raikkonen in Suzuka at the final chicane last year.

    3. @david-br
      i think i found PW’s comment quite insightful. I hear what you saying, but PW said penalty was justified as there is/are racing driver(s) among stewards and points of both drivers has been (most likely) taken. He counter argue Vettel’s argument and why penalty is justified. Also his personal view is that these things should not be penalized as harsly, but then if you dont create precedent, people like max, and vettel will exploit to extreme extend and dont think lewis will sit tight… He already uses rules/regulations to their limits and always in racing line!

      This race was no different for Vettel cracking under pressure, as he has done soooo many times in the last 10 or so races…

      PW is only telling his personal wish that it wasnt penalized as harsly…

      I wish when you are speeding in an empty road, you shouldnt be receiving a speed ticket, let alone there should be any limit on big/long motorways/highways… i wish people who dont know how to reverse/straight park a car isnt given a driver’s license, i wish people who are hogging overtaking lanes banned from driving for good! i wish drunk drivers are given prison sentences!

      but the rules/laws maintain certain balance for a few to not come on top…

      1. @mysticus I agree with you about the incident, but I didn’t think PW was approving the penalty as such, only saying that the stewards took the right decision within the rules as they stand (but the rules should be different). Maybe I got that wrong, I’ll watch again.

    4. Vettel was on grass so there is nothing to indicate that lifting would have slowed the car, and because he was on grass he couldn’t steer until he was off the grass. So in the fractions of seconds when the car came off the grass at close to 100 miles/hour, Vettel was to make the conscious decision to lift and steer left to avoid Hamilton, rather than simply trying to avoid hitting the wall? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the former drivers on Sky’s coverage all felt that Vettel should not have been penalized.

      1. Vettel is a career racing driver. Give him some credit. His reaction time isn’t that of a regular driver. He knew exactly what he was doing. He sped over the grass making no attempts to slow because he wanted to keep his position. And no, Lewis shouldn’t slow down he is there to benefit from the error he forced on the leading car.

        1. +1 Exactly. Hamilton was piling on the pressure to force a mistake, that was his objective. He succeeded, Vettel went off track and he continued on the racing line to get the position he’d earned. That’s the real racing of the day. Not trying to drive the other car off the road.

      2. On grass or tarmac, if VET had lifted off he would have benefitted from 1g aerodynamic drag which would have slowed him down, and he would have had better control once back on the tarmac.

        The former drivers on the Sky coverage did not have the benefit of the telemetry and video replays which clearly showed that VET aimed his car to cut of HAM’s path past him.

  8. This should of been reviewed and decided after the race, not during the race. Vettel and Hamiton could of met with the stewards and then it could of been reviewed, discussed and then decided. Post race. Doing it during the race was not in the best interests of the drivers, the race itself, nor the fans.

    1. Need an edit button. Hamilton, not Hamiton. :)

    2. I don’t think it would make any difference. When they took away Lewis’ win @ Spa ’08 after the fact, one of the biggest complaints I remember hearing was that the result was decided after the race (I especially hated that one because Lewis was on the radio immediately asking if they were ok with how he gave Kimi the place back & Charlie Whiting was ok with it, only for them to take the win away afterwards… even though Kimi ended up crashing out!). Speaking from my own experience as a longtime spectator, in polarizing situations like these people get mad because of the result. How they got there is usually irrelevant.

    3. Deciding it in the race gives Vettel a chance to pull out a 5 second gap. Deciding after the race removes that opportunity.

  9. Vettel made a mistake and rejoined the track dangerously but I think the 5 second penalty was the wrong call from the stewards. It killed the race. I think Vettel should have been told to give position to Hamilton, this would have kept race alive. Basically then tell Vettel to either overtake for the lead or force Hamilton into his own mistake.

    1. Ditto, plus, remembering mexico 2016, vettel was in same situation as hamilton, and he wasnt even under any danger, yet moaned 30 mins that the position to be given to him, as he fought hard to get max make a mistake, which he didnt pay for it (if we believe vettel of course, luckily we dont, as max was given penalty, and he drove harder to make up for the penalty!) he was kind of in max’s shoes today, and he argues that he deserved the win… vettel cant decide whether a driver who makes mistake should pay for it or rewarded for it… we know if the drive making the mistake is himself, he should be rewarded and if driver making the mistake is someone else, that driver should be penalized… he acted like mexico 2016 today, like a child after the race… even the child of the mexico day called vettel a child :) irony

      1. @mysticus Vettel did a great job of covering up his own mistake today and shifting the blame onto FIA (and Hamilton). In the end he made an error, again, under pressure. Had he done what he was supposed to, lift and keep left, away from the racing line, he’d have lost the race and the whole story would have been about him throwing away the chance for a win. Again. Instead this time he successfully turned the story into how he was wronged, both through his ‘accidentally-on-purpose’ defence of the position and through the temper display on the radio and in the paddock, where he channels his frustration (including maybe with himself) into righteous anger. Good job. I don’t blame him, it’s a coping and potentially winning mechanism, but it doesn’t mean we all have to buy it. Bizarre that so many in the media do so.

        1. Fascinating analysis, @david-br. But, far too complex and layered for many in the media to extol. Even if it fits the event.

          1. @jimmi-cynic thanks. Jolyon Palmer on the BBC podcast did come to the same conclusion – it was some effective masking by Vettel of another race-losing error.

  10. Where was the grid penalty for Hamilton, for taking out the championship rival Rosberg in Barcelona in 2016?
    Is this what f1 will become now?
    It would have been better if Vettel had crashed into Hamilton, like Hamilton did back then.

  11. A more balanced and accepted penalty would have been if FIA ordered Vettel to give the position to Lewis for cutting the corner and gaining an advantage. That way Vettel would have the possibility of overtaking Hamilton.
    Vettel should also count himself lucky that he didnt spun into the wall after getting on to the grass or Lewis crashing into him.

    A decision is made so lets just accept it and move on. Seb made an error under pressure so he paid the price.

  12. First & foremost. Who made a mistake & left the track? LH of SV? YES CORRECT! SV.
    I’ve watched the replay of the incident at least 12 times. SeeBashem’s usual RedMist behaviour completely. He didn’t lift the throttle 1mm from start to finish of the mistake. 100% the telemetry from his car will show that. Which the stewards have live & recording telemetry, at all times during the race.
    As such he rejoined the track in a dangerous manner. How the heck Lewis managed to avoid a crash was incredible. If Seb had lifted right off, he would have been able to take a clean line much closer to his left hand side & well off the racing line. Trust me. If Seb had lifted at all, Ferrari would have lodged an appeal immediately. The fact they didn’t & haven’t, is evidence enough of SV being guilty as charged & punished accordingly. The 5 seconds is the lowest sanction applicable. His guilt is also confirmed by his additional 2 points on his license for the incident. I’m also convinced Ferrari told Charles Leclerc to slow down to avoid SV being further humiliated with 3rd place. As per usual SV cracked under the immense & unrelenting pressure from LH for the previous 12 laps. SV’s post race display of petulance? His biggest, best & most disgraceful display of just how far he can spit his dummy out. For that performance from A – Z, he should have been disqualified completely. Beyond any excuse for his extremely unsportsmanlike behaviour. Be interesting to see if any further penalty will be applied for his disgusting behaviour.

  13. Panagiotis Papatheodorou (@panagiotism-papatheodorou)
    10th June 2019, 6:12

    All the former F1 drivers disagree with this. Button, Brundle, Chandok, Mansell, Andretti, I don’t know who else. This is an insult to racing.

    1. Not all. To my knowledge more recent drivers, e.g. Rosberg and Palmer, agree with the stewards.

  14. guys, i’m completely enough of this “vettel cracked again under pressure”. man, he made one tiny mistake during 70 laps, which is completely understandable as he was trying to keep his position against a faster car in race trim. hamilton made at least 5 errors in the hairpin in his spaceship, but – as usual – he was faultless according to you. no, he wasn’t. what vettel did was pure racing, ridiculous penalty from ridiculous fia officials

  15. :D That was brilliant.

    The mistake, the return to the track in Rallycross fashion – grass to pavement.

    Penalty was not that brilliant at all.

    Vettel returned to the track like the stewards said, in unsafe manner. Forcing Hamilton nearly in to the wall, yup. All good, fun and entertaining, Lewis forced Vettel in to a mistake (how is this guy ever gonna recover from these kinds of mistakes when underpressure)

    This is the real story. Vettel cracks under pressure, almost always.

    He might not need to retire, but after two years of this, it is how to see how he will ever be world champion. Not unless they make a 1s per lap faster car, that can simply drive in to the sunset.

    Penalty itself is debatable. Stewards were well within the rights to punish this behavior, but it was also spectacular and entertaining. Anger after the race was entertaining aswell. Sporting it was not, entertainment it was. Maybe it would be better for the championship for him not to get a penalty?

    Lewis is now well clear of Bottas, his sole title rival. Mercedes are 7/7 for Wins.

    1. not cracked under pressure. he was on the limit, one tiny mistake happened. he was able to keep his place so it was not a deciding moment. hamilton made at least 5 mistakes in the hairpin so he also cracked under pressure? 5-1 in mistakes for hamilton, he won. stop this please

      1. @David it clearly was a deciding moment…

        And yes Lewis had a few lockups at the hairpin but there’s tons of runoff and he wasn’t under threat from behind so could afford to take the risk. He knew the worst-case scenario wasn’t that bad and the best-case was that he set himself up better for an overtake into the last chicane. So why not try it?

        When you’re leading by only 2 sec or so you can’t afford errors like that so have to be a bit more conservative. Vettel misjudged his entry to T3 and it ended up costing him the race…

  16. So not only they were incompetent because they gave a stupid penalty, they also were incompetent when stating that Ferrari has the right to appeal.

  17. Under A27.3,
    “Should a car leave the track the driver may re‐join, however, this may only be done when it is
    safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. At the absolute discretion of the race director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he gained by leaving the track”
    that definitely what Seb did break in Canada, so he deserved a 5 sceond penalty.
    But after Seb went off at turn 4, is there any chance to follow that rule? I don’t think so. If Seb didn’t do what he did yesterday, he might either crush alone, or crash with Ham.
    So, in my opinion, neither Seb, Ham, or the stewards should be blamed. This rule is just suck in this time.
    The winner of 2019 Canada grand prix is Ham, no doubt. But who was the best driver? Definitely Sebastian Vettel.

    1. @enzoli Definitely? He made a mistake which cost him the win, how can that make him the best driver? Lewis maximised his race result.

      1. Yeah, finally that mistake cost Seb’s victory. But I prefer to believe that the lapped car in front of Seb made him to make that mistake. When you were in the dirty air, the car just didn’t run in the way that in the clean air. Ham locked up several time when he was behind Seb. Maybe the set up, maybe just some “mistake “, I don’t know. But when Ham was always behind Seb, the car became more predictable. But to Seb, the Ferrari might just out of control suddenly, because of that Toro Rosso.
        I don’t deny Seb made a mistake, and he did. But that mistake won’t steal the best driver.

  18. Prior to this race, the most recent comparable incident was Verstappen on Raikkonen, Suzuka 2018. With Max making an error and locking his brakes on entry to T16, and then making no effort to rejoin safely and collecting Kimi across the other side of the track.

    A five second time penalty is the lightest penalty the Stewards can opt for under the current regulations, the focus should be on Vettel’s mistake under pressure (that is what cost him the race) not the penalty. However the racing instinct of most of the drivers would lead them to do exactly as Vettel did, but that doesn’t make it o.k. under the current regulations and irrespective of the sentiment of fans wanting to see a first Ferrari win in 2019 (although they should arguably have two in the bag already….).

  19. I think the penalty was unfortunate, but entirely reasonable. There’s can be no arguing that he rejoined in an unsafe manner – the only point of contention is whether that was avoidable or not. I can only assume that the stewards would have used their access to (among other things) throttle data to conclude he could have rejoined safely. A 5s penalty is reasonable – it gives Vettel the opportunity to pull out a 5s gap and undo the damage, if he’s able.

    It could also have been a lot worse. Broadly speaking, there are 4 possible outcomes from the incident:
    1) No crash, no penalty (25pts)
    2) No crash, 5s penalty (18pts)
    3) Crash and take Hamilton out (0pts)
    4) Crash and Hamilton continues (0pts)

    Out of those 4 scenarios, he got the second best one. I’m not telling him to calm down (I’d be furious in the same situation) but in the grand scheme of things he got off relatively lightly.

    1. Let me paint it this way:
      1) No crash, no penalty (7 points more than Hamilton)
      2) No crash, 5s penalty (7 points less than Hamilton)
      3) Crash and take Hamilton out (no advantage/disadvantage)
      4) Crash and Hamilton continues (25 points less than Hamilton)

      Out of these 4 scenarios, he only got the third best one :)

  20. The number of people comparing Vettel’s ‘little off’ to Hamilton locking up various times is bewildering. It’s not points out of ten for an elegant gymnastic routine. Hamilton’s lockups affected only himself and he was able to recover pace. Vettel’s compromised Hamilton’s legitimate attempt to pass with a dangerous (and according to the stewards, intentional) block. Does this really need to be explained?

  21. Michael E Ingraham
    10th June 2019, 19:33

    The commentators and the public don’t have access to all the data – radio, in-car, F1 cameras, track CCTV, other telemetry besides steering input (acceleration, braking). I read a article today saying that stewards considered Vettel’s second steering input as going to protect the pass and thus making the unsafe move. They based this on additional data they have which we have not seen. Then they made a UNANIMOUS decision based on how the current rules demand that they make their decision.

    I would like to understand better what Vettel meant by “If I go to the inside he goes past me.” That was part of his radio transmissions. That’s almost admitting he went wide on purpose… which Lewis has admitted he’d had done the same to block. But Lewis did not disagree that it would have been an unsafe move and should not have been penalized. Yes, OK, he’s biased in his favor. He was just saying that going to the outside to block was instinctive. Not malicious. But deliberate nevertheless.

  22. Finally justice for Spa 2008.

Comments are closed.