FORMULA 1 PIRELLI GRAND PRIX DU CANADA 2019: RACE ▄▀▄▀ SPOILERS ▀▄▀▄

Ah ok so that's how it works.

 

Whispers and inuendoes will get you nowhere. It's not what Joe Public says that matters.

Teams have spies and lawyers to look after their interest.

I am sure that if a team flagrantly break the rules, it is pulled over the coal without hesitation.

It's the job of journos to create stories and spread rumours to justify their existence.

The anti-Mercedes lobby gets exited by rumours that lead nowhere.

That keeps me amused ...

 

I know you´re not dumb, so you definitely are trolling me.

On the softs the Ferrari could not open a gap bigger than 3 seconds. On the hards, the Mercedes closed the gap quickly, and from then on stayed on DRS distance from the Ferrari. Do you think that any driver wants to keep a rival in DRS distance if he can avoid it? If Vettel had some pace remaining, he´d had open a gap of a pair of seconds to stay safe, but he could´t.

And now, if you´re bored go to the movies but stop talking nonsense just to stir the pot.

 

I'm not sure if you know how complicated/expensive it is to keep appealing. If FIA even allows it to come to court. The only one that stands to win here is Bottas. Ferrari, Red Bull stand no chance, so why bother?

And Bottas isn't going to go against his team as he'll be driving a delivery van at best by the time we go to France.

 

Or worse -- a Williams.

 

I may know more than you think.

Apart from that, protests and appeals are part and parcel of the due process in sport, these days.

Even if they don't succeed all the time, an avalanche of protests landing on the desk of a sporting authority soon get a flea in their ears and often provokes an enquiry about the management.

Look at other sports, and see how they police their officials and fight corruption.

The trouble about this belly-aching regarding Mercedes is that all the accusations made here are just like spitting in the Wind.

 

Ferrari's chance of a successful protest are equal to what Paul Tracy's and Team Kool Green's chances were against Tony George and company...

 

I'm in agreement with Vettel ... last time I checked, he's an F1 driver ... Vettel himself said that he had no control after driving on the grass. YOU ignore this completely, again and again, and now you're calling it "drivel"

Furthermore, there's at least THREE former F1 drivers who absolutely AGREE with the PENALTY!!

But you continue to dismiss everything you don't want to hear, as nothing more than "my opinion" ...

According to you, it's just "my opinion" that Vettel himself lost control of his car.
According to you, it's just "my opinion" that Vettel himself went in the grass.
According to you, it's just "my opinion" that Vettel had no control after rejoining from the grass ... even though Vettel himself shares this same "opinion".
According to you, it's just "my opinion" that Vettel refuses to take any responsibility for the incident.

You do realize, don't you, that just above everything you've posted in this thread is flat WRONG?

 

Stop posting nonsense !!!

It doesn't fit the "conspiracy theory"

 

What did Vettel say over the radio during the cool down lap? Maybe something to the effect that he did put a block on Ham?

 

One of the great rip-offs in Indy 500 history. To that list I would add Jim Clark in 1963 and Raul Boesel in 1993.

 

All i remember is Vettel screaming, over and over again, that he had no control after rejoining from the grass ... and that he didn't even SEE Hamilton.

How do block a driver you don't even SEE ... if you have no control of your car?

No matter. Let's forget, for a moment, what Vettel actually said. Are you allowed a "blocking" move, if you push an "alongside" driver completely off the track?

(yes, Hamilton was definitely "alongside" according to the definition in the sporting regs ... and yes, Hamilton had to put all four tires to the right of the white line to avoid a collision)

 

Next time Vettel should just pile into Hamilton, get the same penalty and probably win

 

Nope.
Just a very cosy relationship.

 

You Mercedes trolls with your agendas are annoying.

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't happen mate, just ask RIC.

 

I think we should get rid of the podiums and just give everyone a participation trophy.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Us Tifosi should be happy for them.
It clearly gives them a sense of purpose in life

 

Here's an interesting thing to think about.

Vettel is penalized and everyone goes ballistic, including and especially Vettel

Now imagine no penalty was cited.

Would have everyone gone ballistic? Nope. Because it would have been viewed as just another racing incident.

 

Guys ...

Please try to swap the cars ...Lewis leading and goes on the grass ..rejoins causing Vettel to brake ...Lewis then gets a 5 second penalty.Vettel finishes second but takes the win.

Would your reaction it be YESSSSSS!Agree with the Stewards!

Or ...this is totally wrong ! Lewis was robbed ! he did nothing wrong! Stewards are idiots!


Answer on a postcard please.

 

Ok, here is slow as it obviously does not reach you...

Would you please show me where I said that instead of repeating it again and again...

And here comes your opinion into play... If you would have any clue about racing you would know what happened:
Seb lost the car and had to go over the grass, at this moment all he can do is straighten the wheels and do not brake or accelerate in order not to spin, this is what he did. So the car is coming out in a straight line just as it went in, this is exactly what Seb said when saying once in the grass you "do not control were you come back on track"...So far so good, but when re re-entered the track (as you say "uncontrolled") the Mercedes was NOT within one car length, so this can not be the moment he was penalized for...
Once Seb had his wheel on the tarmac again he regained control or did you see him spinning, crashing or torpedoing Lewis???
This is what numerous drivers called a great safe, not like you do an "uncontrolled maneuvre".
And now he comes close to Lewis because he is closing the door on the outside against a faster car approaching from the back. Instead of going to the inside and trying to overtake all Lewis did was keeping his line, braking and complaining... Compared to the incident in Monaco were Lewis crossed the line of Ricciardo TWO times it was absolutely nothing.
So why do you think Seb should take the blame for this? He made a mistake and he rescued it staying ahead, not getting any advantage but yet he is penalized...Again: not the off itself costed Seb the victory but what the stewards made out of it in comparison to other incidents.

Let me guess, one of the ones yo mean is called Rosberg and is ambassador for Mercedes-Benz... yeah, he is very objective....

I will give this back to you and question whether you actually know what you are talking about....

 

To answer your question you simply need to look at Monaco 2016 and you would see that in this case there would have been no penalty as already proven....And this is exactly what people over here are angry about, that there is a different treatment for different drivers and teams. If all would get the same probably nobody would complain about Sunday...

 

It is true that the penalty was exaggerated, but it is also true that Vettel made a mistake under pressure and gave "them" a reason....

 

I don't post very often.
This is all something akin to a storm in a teacup. The history of F1 has been laced with many conspiracy theories - some based on fact, some purely speculation from supporters of opposing teams. Many teams have cheated, or tried to cheat over the years - some got away with it. Good and bad decisions have been made by the federation, and we have all moved on (well most of us!). Whether it is sport or entertainment, some things will always be subjective and rub people the wrong way - be it drivers, teams, managers, car design, the FIA, etc. Ultimately this is what gives F1 some flavour. People debate the pros and cons and make their own minds up: opinions are like Aholes - every forum has one.
We can't change the result from the past weekend. Seb went of the track - we all agree on that fact. Lewis got on the radio and complained about the re-entry - in the modern F1 era, every driver uses the radio to influence whoever is listening - including us. Did Seb mean to go off - no, no driver typically wants to go off circuit. Would Lewis preferred to have won without this incident - sure, typically every driver wants to win on merit. Are there exceptions - history shows there are.
All the drivers whine a lot - I think we get selective snippets of radio chatter, and often it is because the drivers say something deemed "entertaining". As someone has already mentioned, I wish we didn't hear any driver whining - it doesn't add to the appeal.
Again, as has been mentioned, this result is unlikely to change the championship - if it does, let's debate it then.
Stuff like this adds to the history of the series - we still talk about the McClaren, Renault, Ferrari, Tyrell, BAR, Williams, Lotus, etc scandals from years past - and we still watch the racing.
For those who say they are done with F1 as a result of recent (last race and last few seasons) - really? Based on the amazing things that have happened in the past, think about what you may miss in the future. Tomorrow is another day, and France is another race. F1 is more than one race, one bad decision, one bad season - this is why the drivers/teams keep racing.

And yes, I thought it was a racing incident. Seb did mess the corner up, Lewis did run out of room. I don't think Seb did anything intentional other than racing instinct. Lewis said he would do the same thing - they are paid to race after all. Lewis complained - he has the right to do so, as does every driver. Would Lewis have preferred to have won outright - sure. Did Seb have a right to be upset, sure - he should have got 25 points - but he is the one that started this debate

On to the next race...

 

That is why there is no right or wrong here. Its just an opinion of the stewards. An opinion is just that -- an opinion.