Jump to content
IGNORED

Formula One 2021 - DRAMA - #Michael Messy


T Pot
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Blue said:

Hard to appeal a stewards' decision when there was none. That's the problem with the decision not to refer it to them. 

 

There does seem to be some confusion over this. Like what does 'Noted' mean. 

 

As far as I have been able to find out, Noted means the Stewards are aware of an incident and then they decide whether or not to launch an investigation. In this case, they saw the incident but, for whatever, reason decided not to investigate. 

 

I think once something has been noted it is up to the Stewards to make the decision whether or not to investigate it. I don't think it waits until you see the message 'to be investigated' for the Stewards to get involved, as soon as something has been noted it becomes the domain of the Stewards to decide what action to take next. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mexos said:

Yeah I am surprised they are bothering. I can't see anything coming from this other than wasting their time and focus when there are more pressing things to get on with.

 

 

Unless they are doing this just to rile up RB. 

 


Red Bull did it to them when Hamilton got a three place grid penalty in Austria in 2020 after they used his 360 cam after qualifying to prove he didn’t slow down for yellow flags. RB have also been telling everyone they think Mercedes have an illegal car so they may as well fight fire with fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, McCoy said:

 

There does seem to be some confusion over this. Like what does 'Noted' mean. 

 

As far as I have been able to find out, Noted means the Stewards are aware of an incident and then they decide whether or not to launch an investigation. In this case, they saw the incident but, for whatever, reason decided not to investigate. 

 

I think once something has been noted it is up to the Stewards to make the decision whether or not to investigate it. I don't think it waits until you see the message 'to be investigated' for the Stewards to get involved, as soon as something has been noted it becomes the domain of the Stewards to decide what action to take next. 

 

From Autosport - clears things up slightly:

 

Quote

While there was no formal published documentation from the FIA stewards on the Verstappen/Hamilton incident, as an investigation was ruled out by race control, the rule book is clear that the stewards do have to make a decision when incidents are ‘noted’ in this case.

Under Article 47.1 of F1’s Sporting Regulations, it states: “The Race Director may report any on-track incident or suspected breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code (an “Incident”) to the stewards. After review it shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide whether or not to proceed with an investigation.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, McCoy said:

 

From Autosport - clears things up slightly:

 

 

I think that's mixing its words a bit. My understanding is that the race director and his team decide if an incident (noted by them) warrants being referred to the stewards. If the matter is not referred to them, the stewards don't investigate it. If it is referred to them, the stewards then decide whether it needs action taken or not and proceed accordingly. As the noted incident wasn't referred to the stewards, it is a moot point to claim that they did not have all the evidence to examine, as they didn't have any evidence to examine, in an official capacity at least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Blue said:

I think that's mixing its words a bit. My understanding is that the race director and his team decide if an incident (noted by them) warrants being referred to the stewards. If the matter is not referred to them, the stewards don't investigate it. If it is referred to them, the stewards then decide whether it needs action taken or not and proceed accordingly. As the noted incident wasn't referred to the stewards, it is a moot point to claim that they did not have all the evidence to examine, as they didn't have any evidence to examine, in an official capacity at least. 

 

Its a bit weird really. 

 

I mean, the Race Director doesn't make the sporting decisions so if they note an incident why would they then make an initial determination whether it is a potential breach. Surely noting an incident is itself stating that a potential breach has occurred. 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you and F1 could do well with tightening up what Noted actually means in the context of an ongoing race. You'd think the Stewards might be a bit peeved for Race Control to note an incident and then decide that no investigation is required since surely that is the job of the Stewards to make such a determination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, it's ridiculous that they didn't refer it to the stewards and have made a rod for their own back for upcoming races. Expect to see a lot of cars off track, not least Lewis and Max, possibly accompanied by a wall. Should be fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, McCoy said:

I mean, the Race Director doesn't make the sporting decisions so if they note an incident why would they then make an initial determination whether it is a potential breach. Surely noting an incident is itself stating that a potential breach has occurred. 

 

No argument from me. Maybe it is a form of triage system to prevent overloading the stewards? I don't know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McCoy said:

 

5 seconds would likely have put Bottas into 2nd place with the resulting points swing being more favourable to Hamilton than Max finishing 2nd. 

 

I doubt it would have, but it's a possibility. Max eased right off knowing he couldn't get back past lewis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Blue said:

 

I doubt it would have, but it's a possibility. Max eased right off knowing he couldn't get back past lewis.

 

Yeah, it's hard to know what would have happened with a in race 5 second penalty. Would Hamilton have bothered with a risky overtake? But equally, could Max have kept up that pace the entire race? And there was certainly an engine benefit to Max coasting the final few laps. 

 

I'm slightly surprised RB didn't insist on maintaining a 5 second gap to Bottas just in case really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McCoy said:

I'm slightly surprised RB didn't insist on maintaining a 5 second gap to Bottas just in case really. 

 

They got word early that there was no further action so he didn't have to. Pity really, as it might have spiced up the end of the race a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Blue said:

 

They got word early that there was no further action so he didn't have to. Pity really, as it might have spiced up the end of the race a little.

 

I mean just in case Mercedes launch an after the event appeal. Lots of smart people at RB, someone must have thought it was a chance they would and why not maintain 5 seconds anyway. 

 

I mean, RB are king of the after the event appeal/whining. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blue said:

 

No argument from me. Maybe it is a form of triage system to prevent overloading the stewards? I don't know. 


The stewards can choose to investigate something without having to be referred by the race director. I’ve struggled for a while to find out the difference in jurisdiction between race director and stewards, as the difference between them seems a bit arbitrary and vague. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mexos said:

Yeah I am surprised they are bothering. I can't see anything coming from this other than wasting their time and focus when there are more pressing things to get on with.

 

Unless they are doing this just to rile up RB. Which is a possibility.

 

 

It also puts pressure on the stewards for the next time Max runs someone off the track, bit of a footballers trick isnt it - make sure they get a reputation so that any 50/50 decisions always go against him because he is dirty (and he is so no real issue there)

 

Its a pretty clear slam dunk 5 sec penalty and RedBull knew it as do FIA hence the huge delay in releasing the footage, they are kinda stuck now so id expect a retrospective penalty is more likely than not now - either was its some great hearts and minds from Mercedes and will force Redbull to be a bit cautious so double win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mexos said:

Well that's what happens if you don't turn the wheel as the corner tightens.

 

He is smart mind, he never opens out the steering wheel or turns towards Lewis. Just keep it nicely where the car will naturally wash out and only adds angle when the job is done. Impressed.

 

^^^ This, plus what this guy says (essentially the same point): 

 

image.png.6bb289c1103c8f1151abc4098c670771.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mexos said:

Yeah he's no Max / Ham, but he's no Maz either. I recon he'll do just fine.

 

Indeed,  one of them finished 6th in their 2nd season of Formula 2, the other one finished 5th.

 

16 hours ago, McCoy said:

 

5 seconds would likely have put Bottas into 2nd place with the resulting points swing being more favourable to Hamilton than Max finishing 2nd. 

 

This is why penalising after a race is a problem.  Because if Verstappen knew he had 5 seconds, do any of us think he wouldn't have made sure he was 5 seconds ahead of Bottas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Dudley said:

This is why penalising after a race is a problem.  Because if Verstappen knew he had 5 seconds, do any of us think he wouldn't have made sure he was 5 seconds ahead of Bottas?

 

I agree (with the principle, I'm of two minds how much Max burnt out his tyres defending against Hamilton and whether Bottas could have closed the gap anyway). 

 

Ideally the Stewards would have dealt with the incident during the race. In a way I am pleased they didn't as it gave us a great race but equally if the FIA are going to start fining drivers after the race has finished for setting a bad example to the junior formulas I am not sure what example they think it gives letting a driver run another driver clear off track. 

 

Personally, I think Max wasn't too fussed if that incident ended in contact for both of them, when you are leading points wise it is better to wipe out your rival than lose points. Contact was only avoided between Lewis went even further off track than Max who himself went massively off track. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Blue said:

Yeah his analyses are great. 

 

I don't listen the BBC Radio commentary he does but I do enjoy the BBC F1 podcast after the race and he is great on that as well. Frankly the BBC F1 podcast is probably the best one out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, McCoy said:

 

I don't listen the BBC Radio commentary he does but I do enjoy the BBC F1 podcast after the race and he is great on that as well. Frankly the BBC F1 podcast is probably the best one out there. 

Yes I'm a big fan of that podcast as well as the F1 Nation podcast with TC, Pinks and Damon Hill and also the Missed Apex podcast. Sky really needs to do a quick swap between PDR and Jolyon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Blue said:

Yes I'm a big fan of that podcast as well as the F1 Nation podcast with TC, Pinks and Damon Hill and also the Missed Apex podcast. Sky really needs to do a quick swap between PDR and Jolyon. 

 

Yes, F1 nation is good, only downside it is not usually ready for listening to on Monday morning. I listen to Missed apex on occasion but usually Autosport is by second go to podcast if I want to listen further after the BBC one. 

 

Sky desperately needs new blood. Does anyone care what Herbert has to say about anything? For a broadcaster that shows all the races live it is crazy that currently the best presenting talent is elsewhere - Coulthard and Webber with Channel 4, Jolyon at BBC etc. 

 

Out of Sky's current driver panel I would keep Brundle in the commentary box, perhaps with an added third voice of a more recent driver but jettison Herbert, Hill and PDR. Keep Davidson, keep Ted but bring Chandhok into a more prominent presenting role and then try to get Jolyon or a stronger and more extensive commitment from Button and Rosberg. I wouldn't turn down Coulthard or Webber too although certainly with Coulthard you are getting into the Brundle issue of just being away from the current incarnation of the sport for too long. When Vettel retires, he'd be worth good money to any F1 broadcast team. 

 

You get the feeling Hamilton will retire and you'll never see him on an F1 grid again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • T Pot changed the title to Formula One 2021 - DRAMA - #Michael Messy

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.