Sebastian Vettel, Mattia Binotto, Ferrari, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, 2019

“I don’t feel sorry, this is a no-prisoners sport” – Wolff

2019 Canadian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff dismissed Ferrari’s claim Sebastian Vettel’s Canadian Grand Prix penalty was wrong.

Ferrari is yet to confirm whether it has taken up its option to protest the penalty which cost Vettel victory in Sunday’s race. Team principal Mattia Binotto said on Sunday Ferrari “disagree with the decision”.

But Wolff insisted “the interpretation was according to the rules.”

“It’s clear that when you are Mercedes-biased you could say that was probably the right decision, when you are Ferrari-biased you could say it could have been interpreted the other way around,” he said.

“But it’s a little bit like the referee in football: There will always be decision which polarise. And at the end I think it’s great for the sport that we have emotions around it.”

Wolff said it is inevitable people will not always agree with stewards’ decisions.

“I think the drivers are gladiators in high-tech machines and we want them to fight it out there on track. But it is not trivial to find the line between hard racing and bumper cars in the future.

“For the FIA it becomes a point of safety: How hard can they drive. Making rules is such a difficult exercise and verdicts will not always please everybody.”

Asked whether he felt “sorry” for Vettel, Wolff said: “I don’t feel sorry, this is a no-prisoners sport. And they would have taken it the other way around too. But I can understand a racer’s frustration when a result goes against him.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2019 F1 season

Browse all 2019 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
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.

83 comments on ““I don’t feel sorry, this is a no-prisoners sport” – Wolff”

  1. All people defending VET against the penalty should understand something, HAM should have been in the lead if VET didn’t gain control and blocked him as a result. Why should you accept VET blocking HAM and denying him the lead and at the same time you reject the penalty that gave him a chance to stay in the lead? For me, VET should handed HAM the lead to avoid a penalty and then try to catch him later with the straight line advantage he had. I support the penalty knowing it was so harsh, but being in HAM shoe, if VET didn’t get a penalty, that is a win stolen from HAM, since without the block and the wall he would have been the car leading after that mistake from VET. My opinion.

    1. +1 Agree 100%, which is why also the ideal penalty would have been to tell Vettel to let Hamilton pass as soon as possible. Maybe they should include this as one of the penalty options (and decide a bit quicker, though I appreciate it’s a tough job, one imposed by teams and drivers demanding clear rules and fair application).

      1. I have seen that before on numerous occasions @david-br. I think it’s a failure on Ferrari to advocate successfully on behalf of Vettel during the penalty decision. I’m not sure where discretion falls into play but that’s what a driver steward is there for. It was a poor penalty choice for the fans. That is the most important point imo.

        1. @fletch I’m not sure they had that penalty option for that infringement though (unsafe return onto the track). I mean, it was an unsafe return and he did intentionally block HAM (according to the telemetry) but seen from a race perspective, what happened was that Hamilton was denied the chance to pass after Vettel cut the corner and drove into the racing line, nearly causing a collision. Telling him to give up the place would have been lenient but probably left both sides happier. And the spectators/fans.

      2. If they include the ‘give the place’ penalty, they should be quick to take the decision not to influence the outcome.

        Would have been the best possible for spectators as it would have been handled on track…

        I am surprised nobody mentioned that Hamilton dropped back during the time stewards were investigating the incident. Don’t know if it has an influence on the outcome but surely at least a minor one.

    2. Yes, and what would Ferrari and Vettel have done if things had been the other way round …. hypocrites.

      1. I think that telling Vettel to give up the place would have been better although still not fair because drivers are usually given a chance if they cut a corner once.

        Although Hamilton looked faster at least it would have kept the race alive and Vettel would have had a chance to do something to get the lead instead of making it easy for Hamilton.

        1. Thats the angle I was thinking along. The penalty seems inevitable to me with the rules as written, but in most circumstances drivers are allowed to retain an advantage (while defending) at least once.

          I did wonder if Vettel might have been able to give Ham the lead back one corner before the long straight (meeting the condition of not passing into the next corner, triggering DRS and then having a passing opportunity into the last chicane.

          At the very least, it would have been better than the unedifying spectacle we actually got.

        2. @glynh

          drivers are usually given a chance if they cut a corner once

          Isn’t that when they’re not actually racing head-to-head for a position, though? Plus it wasn’t just corner cutting. Vettel lost control of the car and returned unsafely (out of control). A penalty of some kind was due.

    3. HAM should have been in the lead if VET didn’t gain control and blocked him as a result.

      That maneouver was mostly a defending maneouver if we don’t consider it as a part of the rejoining the track. It was the 1st defending maneouver in the race. In this particular kind of racing the drivers are allowed to defend their position. It was on the limit, but sometimes it happens. In 2016 Monaco HAM did worse than VET: he rejoined the track directly on the racing line, blocking RIC. Yet, he escaped any penalty.

      1. @mg1982 But that incident isn’t entirely comparable with this one, though. The only properly comparable incident from the recent past is the Verstappen-Raikkonen incident from Suzuka last season.

      2. Rickie Nurse
        11th June 2019, 15:16

        MG 1982, you forgot the most important part to that reference, Toto Wolf came on the radio and told Lewis to give the lead to Ricciardo, that is what negated the Stewards taking any action against Lewis.
        And yes, when Max Verstappen did the similar thing to Raikkonen Ferrari was all too acceptant of it and said it was the right decision then, why is it wrong now that their driver is the one who caused the infraction to another driver and has been penalised for it?

    4. Jonathan Edwards
      11th June 2019, 13:07

      I disagree. Hamilton had no divine right to be in the lead because Vettel went off. You’re equating this to a situation where a driver is actively passing another, and that driver cuts a corner and preserves their lead. That is most certainly worthy of a swap in position, and potentially a penalty depending on how they rejoin.

      In this incident, Hamilton wasn’t remotely close to Vettel when he went off. Vettel is under no obligation to maximize the damage of his mistake. When he rejoined, Hamilton was still behind. The only reason it became a blocking situation is because Hamilton chose to pass on the side Vettel was always going to drift to. He would have passed if he went to the left. And are we really arguing that a driver behind an incident has no obligation to ensure he can safely pass? Just keep the boot in and hope for the best?

      1. The only reason it became a blocking situation is because Hamilton chose to pass on the side Vettel was always going to drift to.

        AKA the racing line, which is why Vettel was obliged to stay off it as he’d gone off track.

        1. Jonathan Edwards
          11th June 2019, 17:40

          I’m of the opinion that Vettel couldn’t have stayed more to the left. And yes, I’m aware that an opinion is simply an opinion. Vettel could do little to alter his trajectory. Brake hard, spin. Turn sharply left, likely spin. He did the proper thing, which is to take as straight a line as possible until back on the track. He then had to sort the car after running over the curb, as Karun pointed out in his video analysis. Once done, and pertinent here, is that he was still ahead of Hamilton at this point. He was well within his rights to drift over, or to release the steering lock to block the pass Hamilton was only then trying to make. Plenty of ex-drivers have agreed that it should have been judged a racing incident. Some have agreed the penalty was correct. That’s fine. What irks me is the attitude of some here, who think it’s a cut and dry incident, & those who think no penalty was warranted are delusional. It’s most certainly not cut and dry, which should be evident by the number of high profile names that have commented on it.

          1. I think it’s cut and dry in terms of the existing rules and the stewarding procedure. In terms of whether those should be the regulations, clearly not. It’s a worthwhile debate as you’re implying. But Vettel has to accept the existing regulations and form of adjudication apply. In a sense he did because he didn’t claim he had a right ro block Hamilton, he said he had no control over the car. And the stewards found that he did.

          2. You really have to find the onboard view without slowing it down and just listen to VET’s engine sound… There you will hear what off throttle sounds like (when he catches the oversteer after the error) and what applying throttle even slightly sounds like from the second he enters the grass and until he finally gains full control of the car and accelerates. He could have just stayed off throttle during his excursion if he wanted to safely rejoin the track and be “in control” of his car… That’s how I see it.. Needless to say though, that even as only a PC F1 2018 driver , with many many hours behind a crappy wheel, I would instinctively do the exact same thing even though I know it would be the wrong thing to do…

      2. Ultimately none of the arguments against this decision matter. The stewards have MUCH more information and data on the incident than anyone on this and any other website. You crack on though love…I mean they might reverse their decision based on your flawed arguments. Good luck with that.

        1. Jonathan Edwards
          11th June 2019, 16:37

          What a brilliant insight. Keith might as well shut the forum down, huh?

          1. What a brilliant insight. Keith might as well shut the forum down, huh?

            For all the effect the discussion here will have on the outcome of the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix, sure. But that’s not really what the discussion section is for.

            We can express our opinions, but as none of us are stewards, let alone the stewards who made this particular decision, and I doubt any of us sit on the International Sporting Council, or whatever the body that will hear the appeal is called, nothing we say really means anything except to us. :)

        2. In this case the stuff they looked at was all available to fans. The OnBoards were shown on TV & the telemetry data is available via the F1 timing app.

          1. Broadcasters also have access to both & I gather that we will see that data on the Wednesday F1TV show.

      3. Alex McFarlane
        11th June 2019, 19:08

        Lewis could not have stayed on the inside line without ramming Vettel as he rejoined the track, that is clear as day from the footage.

        Hamilton took the most sensible option – taking the outside line to give Vettel room to rejoin the track.

        Having watched the incident repeatedly, I still have no idea why Vettel steered so hard to the right when rejoining the track, this to me seems to have caused the 2nd oversteer moment that sent the car across the track, rather than prevented one as he rejoined.

        1. Jonathan Edwards
          12th June 2019, 11:48

          “Hamilton took the most sensible option…”

          Did he? What was clear from the footage is that Vettel was off track, on the grass, and likely going to run over a curb to get back on, which often affects the car. Hamilton chose to keep his foot on the throttle, and tried to take the corner in the normal fashion, in the hope Vettel wouldn’t end up in the way.

          As I stated in another post, are we arguing that a driver behind an incident has no responsibility to ensure he can safely pass a driver that had an off, and could be out of control?

          Hamilton could have modulated his throttle input enough to wait to see where Vettel would end up, which again, was always going to be where he did, and could have passed on the left.

          If you say he didn’t have time to process all that, fine, as neither did Vettel, which is why is could have been deemed a racing incident.

          1. “Hamilton could have modulated his throttle input enough to wait to see where Vettel would end up..”
            If I see the car head of me go off the track like it did, I’m not going to take my foot off and give him a free option to see how it all ends up. I’m going to ensure i keep the hammer on to ensure i take advantage of the other car’s error, and hopefully use it as an overtaking opportunity. These guys aren’t on track to make up the numbers. Every second counts, every opportunity counts. To sit back and let the guy in front sort his muddle out is not in their mindset. And for the record, I think VET being told to give the position to HAM would have been fairer..

          2. @Jonathan Edwards I agree with your take. Something that has been little talked about, and I mentioned the same on another topic this morning, is that LH chose to go for a gap he couldn’t have known would be there since he couldn’t have known how in control or not SV was. If SV ‘forced’ LH to take an evasive maneuver as per the stewards decision, then that is because LH chose to put himself where he did at a risky moment. Not blaming LH for taking a risk as that is racing for you, but it is also why I will always consider this a racing incident. I think SV had less choice in how he regained control of his car than LH had by just backing off a tad and not risking getting hit.

    5. Will Buxton tweeted something which I thought was very interesting about this debate which has been largely overlooked, the gist is essentially this: The stewards ruled that Vettel pushed Hamilton off the track. Had Vettel left room and Hamilton got round Vettel, should he (Hamilton) have been penalised for passing while having been beyond track limits?

      It sounds a bit crazy, but the answer to that question, if the stewards logic is correct, would have to be yes. Despite the fact that this is the accepted racing line at this corner, the picture linked below shows quite clearly that Hamilton as all four wheels beyond the white line. Either way this incident went, it was going to be controversial.

      https://www.racefans.net/2019/06/10/hamilton-wins-as-vettel-cracks-under-pressure-again/m198606/

      1. This is the sort of thing that is discussed in the drivers briefing. Which corners you can take liberties at. And on this particular corner its acceptable now, and as far as I know, has been for years. What would seem odd is to penalize one driver on one lap, whilst letting every other driver on every other lap of the race get away with the same ‘offence’. What would seem even odder is to penalize the driver going off the track, but the long way round; whilst the guy who goes off track by cutting the corner and taking the shortest route gets nothing .

      2. +1 completely agree with this sediment

      3. @geemac No, because Vettel should have left space for Hamilton ON the track.

        Like Grosjean did after the first corner incident. Just stay off the racing line.

      4. If Hamilton had passed with all four wheels outside the track limits (the white line), then yes… He’d have had to give the position back, or take a 5 second penalty.

        The difference is, Hamilton drove to the edge of the rulebook. Vettel drove to the edge of the track. ;)

    6. Knowing vettek he would have never gave the position he would have more likely crashed into lewis. Vettel has no control of his emotions in the car outside of the car all he does is lie

    7. Absolute facts

  2. The penalty was ridiculous (no one should be penalised for an impressive save because there’s a car near them) but I don’t blame anyone at Mercedes, they’ll do anything to win just as any team would and these days any small issue means a driver is straight on the radio complaining just on the off chance of getting a penalty.

    1. @glynh It wasn’t the save that landed him the penalty. Vettel got control of the car when there was still plenty of space on his right. Then he checked his mirrors for Hamilton, floored it, and moved to his right.

      1. No he didn’t. Watch the onboard.

        1. That’s what the stewards believe happened hence the penalty

      2. @f1osaurus @stjs16 And other drivers (Past & present) that have seen & analyzed the replays disagree with that view.

        And they are always the people who’s views I value more than anyone else’s (Including my own) because they will have a far better understanding of how a car will react in these situations than anyone else will.

        1. @gt-racer None of those actually saw all the evidence and most of them are just talking about how it “ruined the race”

          So what’s your point?

          What is that last bit of nonsense supposed to add? The only ex-F1 driver opinion that mattered was Emanuele Pirro’s.

          1. @f1osaurus The point is that many disagree with the penalty even if one ex-F1 driver along with the stewards decided the penalty. Incidents can be very shades of grey. I will never agree that this was more than a racing incident. Anyone can see enough from the footage provided to form their own opinion. If it is so debatable that it takes every iota of minute data that the stewards have at their disposal, then no wonder the reaction has been contentious. Have you always agreed with the stewards decision on incidents?

          2. @robbie The point is that he pretend we should only listen to the option of F1 drivers while one of them was actually right there in the room applying the actual rules. As opposed to a couple of sentiment jerkers going along with popular opinion.

            There is nothing debatable about this decision. It’s a clear foul. The F1 driver’s counter opinion is either that it shouldn’t be penalized because it ruined the race. Or that they mistakenly think Vettel wasn’t in control of his car when it’s blatantly clear from telemetry and even on board audio/video that he was. That Vettel in fact was accelerating well before he blocked Hamilton

          3. Nobody is pretending to only listen to one side. There is nothing wrong with hearing both sides and forming an opinion that way. But now they are just ‘sentimental jerks?’ Please. I had already thought racing incident when Brundle and the others immediately called it so. The opinions that differ from the stewards’ do not automatically have to be because either it ruined the race or that SV wasn’t on control of his car. It could also be that some just want to let them race and with a marginal incident like this, not decide things in a room but let them be decided on the track. What is clear to you is not so clear to everyone, obviously. If it was less debateable and so clear we wouldn’t still be talking about it.

          4. @f1osaurus The drivers in question saw the in-car footage & that’s all they will have needed to see because they know how the cars act in those circumstances.

            Data is useful but it will never tell the full story because the data doesn’t give you what the drivers feel, It doesn’t tell you what the grip level is like or how the car reacts to been at different angles or how unsettled it gets when bouncing over a kerb.

            For all the data the teams have that tell them what the car is doing they still rely more on the feedback the driver gives them because while the data can show the driver applying opposite lock it can’t tell them why the driver applied opposite lock, That bit of information can only come from the driver because there the one’s in the car that can feel what it’s doing & react to that.

            That is why I say I always like to listen to & put more value on what the drivers say in regards to things like this.

          5. @robbie Well when you ask people for an opinion, an opinion is what you will get. An opinion is based on sentiment yes and on half complete observations.

            They ask the stewards for a ruling and a ruling is what you get.

          6. @gt-racer So why not simply listen to the only ex-F1 dtriver who actually matters? Emanuele Pirro?

            He does not just have experience, but he also meticulously went through all the evidence rather than give some knee jerk reaction.

          7. @f1osaurus I very much agree with what @gt-racer is saying but further to that you should read what Alex Wurz says about this in an article referenced by Hazel in the most recent Round-up. Basically Wurz explains why the stewards penalized SV but he also says he himself did not think it was anything more than a racing incident. It’s the article that references quotes from the ‘GPDA boss,’ who is Wurz.

          8. @robbie How on earth does “what Wurz said” change anything? In fact he says there was no other way to rule on this other than a penalty. So in fact he agrees with me. That it is his OPNION that he’d rather not see penalties for most offences that get penalized nowadays is irrelevant.

            My opinion is that all this cheating is what is killing racing. It might look like a minor cheat, but when Ricciardo blocked Bottas on the main straight, we get no battle for position. When Vettel blocked Hamilton after Vettel cracked under pressure and blundered off track, we also get no battle for position.

            We want to see a battle for position. Not some damn bully ruining the racing. So yes the penalties do make sense. They don’t penalize drivers for making a mistake. That’s just nonsense the offending driver claims. They penalize drivers for making a foul and thereby ruining racing.

            Vettel was in already back in control of his car halfway across the track. From there on he deliberately drifted to the outside of the track blocking Hamilton’s. You hear him accelerating, which means he’s using the grip of the tyres not to steer, but to accelerate. Deliberate = not a mistake = penalty

            Besides, why don’t you read what Rosberg said, what Palmer said, what Damon hill said. It’s all just opinions but those you do ignore?

            Especially listen to Rosberg because he’s a world champion and he knows a thing or two about foul racing tricks.

            Or again, why not just go with what ‘ex F1 driver and 5 times Le Mans winner’ Emanuele Piro said? What’s wrong with that?

            What’s more, Wurz indeed had the OPINION that Verstappen shouldn’t have gotten a penalty. Fine. Then he also gets to have the OPNION that Vettel doesn’t deserve one either. Fine.

            Yet Vettel was blasting Verstappen for being so very very wrong in Suzuka 2018, but now he does the exact same thing and he pretends the whole world has gone mad that he also gets the same penalty! That’s just hypocritical beyond belief.

          9. @f1osaurus Wow you’re really bothered by this to an extreme. But unfortunately to the point where you’re off on an unnecessary tangent. First of all I didn’t claim his quotes would change anything. I just thought it was interesting that SV got a penalty moreso for the culture of giving penalties than for what he actually did. Yeah Wurz is giving his opinion and it is yet another one who says that was a racing incident and was only penalized because of the culture of giving penalties, again, not specifically because SV committed some dastardly crime.

            Now you’re an about ‘all this cheating?’ What cheating? sV made a mistake and got penalized. You should be happy. But of course you are convinced he did something dastardly, which is obviously wrong or he would have gotten more than just 5 seconds and we would not still be debating this. You’re claiming that you know SV was in control at a certain point and you could not possibly know that.

            Take a chill pill lad before you pop a vein…sheesh. Try to accept that sometimes peoples’ opinion will differ from yours. If you don’t you might find yourself extinct and as f1osaurus. You’re way overdoing this.

          10. @robbie I’m allergic to stupidity yes.

          11. @f1osaurus Lol then you better grab a hanky and sneeze it out.

  3. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    11th June 2019, 12:38

    Personally I’m not a fan of the penalty. Everyone has an opinion.

    I wonder though if this will have some future fallout on stewarding choices in the future should an event like this occur again – will they continue with the same punishments or will they become lenient to avoid this drama? Would it be the same between a battle for P1 & P2 or between P15 & P16? Or whether it will affect a battle for the lead on whether P1 and P2 will fight or not, for fear of going over the limit and being punished hard for it. I figure the shadow of this event will probably stretch a little further than it should. It’s a bit sad that this is the kind of thing we’re discussing and talking about as the rest of the season so far has been… lacklustre.

    1. They will be the same punishments. The stewards only have punishment discretion within the parameters set by the rules. Rules that the teams insisted on, and the drivers hammer home at every other safety meeting. In this case Seb was given the lesser punishment available.

  4. Ooops….

    Post race scrutineering showed Mercedes hydraulics was not 100% identical with version that had been replaced in Hamiltons car before the race. But FIA couldn’t prove it was working differently and cleared Mercedes.

    AMuS (in German):
    https://mobile.twitter.com/tgruener/status/1138341923394113537?s=19&utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ios_share_flow_optimization&utm_term=enabled

    1. @nesarajah Ah but that’s ok…. They don’t have to enforce every rule.

      1. Because the regulations says the part has to be of similar spec. Key word, similar, of which the part was.

    2. @nesarajah @petebaldwin

      Snippit from the Rule Book

      “It must be clear that any replacement part a team wishes to fit is similar in design, mass, inertia and function to the original”

      It does not say it has to be 100% identical. . . Ooops

      1. Sorry I fail to understand how “similar in design, mass, inertia and function” is not the technical way of saying something must be identical.

        Perhaps a learned wizard of the rule book can explain how it’s not the same?

        1. David Donaldson
          12th June 2019, 14:46

          “Similar” does not mean “identical” obviously

        2. Because the words Similar and Identical are different.

        3. @nesarajah get a grasp of the English language then. SIMILAR and IDENTICAL are not the same word or meaning.

  5. Kubica v Schumacher Canada 2010

    Funny how Kubica, with a car also on the grass to his left, no-less, still leaves a greater gap to the right than Vettel after re-entry…

    Sure, Seb was likely carrying in marginally more speed, but I don’t buy the rhetoric pulling off an amazing save or miracle to keep it out of the wall.

    As Keith said in his race review:

    …other drivers whose achievements don’t amount to a fraction of Vettel’s have gone off at the same corner and not felt the need to cross the track from one side to the other as they did rejoined.

    1. That is an interesting comparison. Kubica managed to leave about half a car width more room on the exit there…as you mention he was carrying slightly less speed into the corner which may have been a factor. Also makes the track limits debate more relevant…if that space was there and Hamilton had sailed past round the outside, should he have been penalised?

    2. There are way too many factors to draw a comparison between these two events. Flawed logic.

      1. True, since Vettel was accelerating as he came off the grass. While Kubica was actually just trying to recover and not intent on blocking someone on his right.

  6. The problem is not the penalty but the lack of consistency with which it is applied. Different tracks have different characteristics, but if you have a narrow track then this penalty like the one in Monaco should be enforced the same. If its not then there needs to be an appeal system in place to allow teams a comeback because otherwise why not have all penalties as final and no chance of appeal.

    1. Verstappen on Raikkonen Suzuka 2018. Exactly the same scenario with the same outcome.

      In fact Vettel was in total agreement that Verstappen deserved that penalty. And, low and behold, Verstappen claimed he did nothing wrong and had “nowhere to go”.

  7. I like this: it a no prisoners sport. So stop moaning about right or wrong. The drivers must show no mercy on the track, and yes, sometimes it is a little too much and then you get a penalty.

  8. Actually F1 is a sport without prisoners, but there are no real executioners, bet on killing it … Hypocrite

    1. F1 really is a sport without prisoners, but real executioners, bet on killing it … Hypocrite

  9. Jonathan Edwards
    11th June 2019, 18:15

    Critical thinking skills need to apply here, and if you think the scenarios are identical, you should work on your application.

  10. Stephen Higgins
    11th June 2019, 18:50

    Here’s an idea.

    Maybe instead of a time penalty, a world championship point should have been deducted from the offending driver’s score (Vettel only getting 24 points for the win instead of 25).

    If you will, a bit like a boxer being deducted a point for an illegal blow during a fight.

    The offending driver is still penalized, but there is no effect on the actual on-track action and the final race result.

  11. Had to chuckle when I read this quote from Martin Brundle:

    I’m being romantic here, but Lewis and Mercedes would have done very well for the sport and themselves to effectively kick the ball into touch and say to Ferrari ‘get Leclerc off our tail and we’ll drop more than five seconds back from Vettel’…

    That’s not being romantic, you poor codger. That’s being asinine. #LetThemRace…except when our favorite’s getting the short end of the stick, then it’s #LetThemTrade :D Laughable!

    1. In what way is this a Sport?

      If Lewis had gifted Vettel a pity win after nearly being driven into a contrete wall it would not have been in any way a sporting geasture, it would have been pathetic. Mean drivers like Vettel should not profit from that behaviour. Objectively Ferrari knows their only hope for the championship is a Mercedes DNF, how they achieve that is left to their Mean spirited driver.

  12. PIETER VAN BREDA
    11th June 2019, 19:49

    Hamilton would’nt have won this race but instead was given this race,he tried for 70 laps without success,so the stuards needed to help.

  13. If the sport truly was “take no prisoners”, then Ferrari should have had Vettel back up Hamilton and had Leclerc punt him off. That would be “take no prisoners”. Toto’s just being smug.

  14. I don’t know about the rest of you, but when an Austrian starts talking about “taking no prisoners” it makes me nervous.

    1. To make it clear… /s

      1. Electroball76
        12th June 2019, 14:09

        That was a perhaps Volkswagen

  15. i dont know for any of you who defend Hamilton would have been able to control the car after going off, but I think Vettel has done his best to avoid collision. Anyway, the penalty imposed on Vettel just make me feel F1 is too much rule based. I think the one who imposed the penalty should at least try to be in Vettel’s position in a simulation before deciding to do so, for me F1 has done injustice to Vettel.

  16. Electroball76
    12th June 2019, 16:07

    Time is money. Instead of a time penalty just fine the driver and issue one penalty notice. Three strikes will then result in a race ban.

  17. How come there has been little discussion about the understeer initiated by Vettel before the off. He could have lifted an brakes before the off. He kept his foot in it too keep the lead, damn the consequences of safety. To me that’s the ultimate reason why the penalty was correct. His arrogance is a danger. This could have been a dangerous shunt for both drivers but for Hamilton’s avoidance.

Comments are closed.