Ferrari withdrawn Canada time penalty appeal
Ferrari will not appeal Sebastian Vettel's Canada GP time penalty, but the Italian team is looking into another way to re-claim the race win.
"We have withdrawn our intention to appeal and are evaluating the right of review," a spokesperson for the Maranello outfit declared.
It is believed Ferrari came to the conclusion that the traditional appeal process would fail.
But another article of the sporting regulations allows for a 'review' of the stewards' decision if new evidence comes to light.
According to sources, this new evidence could be video or telemetry data that the original stewards would then need to review in a reconvened panel.
"I doubt that there is this new evidence," Ernst Hausleitner, the commentator for Austrian broadcaster, said.
Grand Prix Drivers' Association president Alex Wurz agrees: "Anyone who believes the penalty was unjustified is wrong."
The fault in the system, Wurz claims, is the overregulation of Formula 1.
"We want rules for everything and anything, and that's where we have arrived," said the former F1 driver.
Toto Wolff, the Mercedes team boss, thinks Ferrari's strategy of pushing for a review is misguided.
"You cannot undo the penalty," he told Osterreich newspaper.
"The worst case would be that the stewards, after looking at the data, find that a bigger penalty is needed.
"I talked to Mattia Binotto and he thinks that would happened is not worth a 100 per cent penalty. I think he is 100 per cent wrong.
"The fact is that Vettel went off the track, looked in the mirror and pushed Lewis towards the wall. If Lewis had not braked, the two would have collided. That's why there is the penalty.
"Ok, it's controversial," Wolff added. "But in our sport you do not take prisoners."
La Gazzetta dello Sport claims that Ferrari has until the French GP weekend to establish the case for a review.
✅ Check out more posts with related topics:
The penalty was harsh, Vettel had to take that evasive action or would have crashed in the wall and there is every chance that Hamilton too would have crashed into Vettel, and that would be extremely serious.
My initial view was the penalty was harsh for Vettel. But look at it from a totally different perspective. If you drove your car through a red traffic light, then would you consider it harsh if the police pulled you over and gave you a ticket?
Vettel made the mistake, not Hamilton. However, as no contact was made between the cars, then I think the 5 second penalty was too harsh. For Vettel's error, race control should have simply ordered Vettel to let Hamilton pass and to resume racing.
A very poorly constructed argument with the bottom line: let Hamilton benefit from the event in either case.
There are categories such as: errors, mistakes, racing incidents, infraction, transgressions, offences, etc. Believe it or not Christian Horner referred even to "sin" (in case of Verstappen being penalised.)
Your argument is "Vettel made a mistake, therefore there is a consequence."
Racing incidents, by definition, are always a consequence of a mistake of one or more drivers, and yet they are specifically tagged as "racing incidents," meaning no action, no penalty.
So all of you who call this Vettel's mistake and insist on his being penalised are in blatant conflict with rules and practice employed in all F-1 races.
It seemed to me that as soon as Vettel rejoined the tarmac he put his foot down and that is why he had to correct which resulted in the squeeze on Hamilton. Certainly, he took off and pulled away from Hamilton immediately. Presumably, the telemetry would show this and the stewards would have reviewed it. If he had lifted as he re-entered the track, then, imo, he would not have drifted into Hamilton but would have lost the lead. Without access to the telemetry, fans will, I guess, interpret the video according to their preferences!
"....Without access to the telemetry, fans will, I guess, interpret the video according to their preferences!..."
But now that this ubiquitous and almighty telemetry is there, and out, isn't that what everyone is doing - interpreting video according to their preferences.
I have followed fairly reasonably the rage on several portals, sites, and FB. The bottom line is:
-all Vettel supporters argue telemetry exonerates him,
-all Hamilton supports argue telemetry incriminates Vettel
Evidently everybody has made up their minds. All they are doing is hide behind telemetry in support of their own conclusion.
Sorry I didn't realise that the telemetry was out there - please could you give me a weblink to it. Many thanks.
You, more than likely, have already seen everything that telemetry can show you.
I really am surprised about everyone going gaga: "telemetry, telemetry." All we see is what we have already seen from different angles, at different speeds. How many viewers are qualified to extrapolate Vettel's intentions and actual actions (acceleration, steering, breaking, his view of Hamilton's car)?
I would venture to suggest - none!
Suddenly telemetry has become what a DNA is to the proponents of its use in forensic and some other disciplines. Hand a DNA evidence of something to the enthusiasts and they won't have a faintest idea of what they are looking at.
It was Vettel's mistake that caused the situation in the first place. He seemed to make no effort to turn steering wheel to the left to avoid Hamilton as soon ss he was back on track. Penalty justified.
A very poorly constructed argument with the bottom line: let Hamilton benefit from the event in either case.
There are categories such as: errors, mistakes, racing incidents, infraction, transgressions, offences, etc. Believe it or not Christian Horner referred even to "sin" (in case of Verstappen being penalised.)
Your argument is "Vettel made a mistake, therefore there is a consequence."
Racing incidents, by definition, are always a consequence of a mistake of one or more drivers, and yet they are specifically tagged as "racing incidents," meaning no action, no penalty.
So all of you who call this Vettel's mistake and insist on his being penalised are in blatant conflict with rules and practice employed in all F-1 races.
Stop being so up yourself. Anne has a point and it's her view. She's entitled to it and it would be more credible on your part if you didn't always oppose anyone who says something positive about Hamilton. You seem very biased against certain drivers seemingly without good reason and it's therefore difficult to see your comments as anything other than one sided.
Last time you and I exchanged views I offered to stay out of your way, and implicitly asked that you do the same. Evidently you are not good at it.
I also accused you, and shall repeat it here, that you argue(d) ad hominem to which you objected. What then saying "Stop being so up yourself." is?
"Anne has a point and it's her view."
Thank you for pointing out that it's her view.
It is your right to think that she has a point. I happen to think that she doesn't. And that is what riles you up - you are not very good at being disagreed with.
"You seem very biased against certain drivers seemingly without good reason...."
No, I am not biased, I just have dislikes, and have previously both said that and given the reason for those.
On the assumption that I dislike Hamilton (which is only one half true) then ask yourself: WHY DOES THAT OFFEND YOU?
It is your right to see my comments as one-sided. I shall make no effort to try to be all things to all posters. I neither ask you nor expect you to agree with my views.
You, again, try to bully the board with your opinions and impose the view of the incident discussed by trying to turn posters views into a topic. (I am not the topic of this thread, Vettel's penalty in Montreal is!)
Poor form, I must say, for a sanctimonious prick that you are.
Says the man with more faces than Jaqen H'ghar.
Take a moment to look at your comments and see who the bully is? A blind man on a galloping horse may take a different view. You state regularly that you don’t watch F1 much but thank god for that because if you did the rest would never get a look in. And whilst on the subject of sanctimonious statements you really ought to understand what you are shovelling. In an earlier post you were criticising someone for a different viewpoint in this very topic because he argued the case and suggested that telemetry could be used. And coincidentally this is what was used to decide the penalty by the Stewards. Because this did not fit your narrative you then berated him and explained the error of his way as any false prophet would do. Read it yourself, sanctimonious personified. Then Anne had the temerity to give her view using just what she could SEE with her owns eyes and like a dog with a bone there you go again. There’s a word for it and I’ve told you what it is before.
And finally because you didn’t answer it when I raised it a time or two before; why didn’t you challenge the racist abuse of Hamilton on these pages when you see yourself as a defender of the underdog? There is likely a simple answer and it goes to the sort of person that you are. A hypocrite!
Get rid of the stupid and race like moto go on two wheels have loved Formula One since it’s inception 1950 .For my view it is now at its lowest level we watch boxers beat each other so drivers should beat each othe by hard racing not through pussy foot rules
To me, that was a racing incident that did not deserve any penalty but then I have not been an F1 driver. But Martin Brundle, Jenson Button and Mark Webber appear to concur with me. I, like Toto Wolff agree that it's time that the rules were reviewed and amended. We were robbed of being able to watch an exciting finish which Lewis ruined by questioning the legality of Sebastisn's maneuver and in receiving confirmation of the 5 sec penalty, sat bach keeping within 5 seconds of Seb until the final lap thus ruining what could have been a very exciting finish. What a shame that money plays such an important part of what used to be called a sport, with sport being the operative term. I believe that Stirling Moss would agree with me. I refer to the occasion when due to his sporting objection in support against the penalisation of Mike Hawthorn in the penultimate race which cost him the world championship in the final race which Stirling won. What a sporting gentleman he was. Unfortunately free personal advertising and financial gain rule the sport these days where gentlemen no longer exist.
My initial view was that Vettel should not have received the penalty. What I first saw was Vettel losing control of his car on a right hand turn, then going off the track onto the grass before the left hand turn. Vettel then re-entering the track after the left hand corner while trying to regain control of his car. At the same time, Hamilton was trying to pass Vettel on the outside. Hamilton had to brake to avoid being pushed into the wall, while Vettel claimed he had nowhere else to go.
On reflection though, let us look at it fairly without an bias towards either driver. The Canadian F1 race is 305.270 km long on a tarmac racetrack.
In race distance alone, Hamilton wins. Hamilton drove the 305.270km as he kept within the confines of the tarmac. Even though, Vettel was leading, Vettel drove 305.269Km due to a shortcut across some grass.
The rules clearly state you must have two wheels on the tarmac at all times. Since Vettel did not actually complete the true race distance - then this throws up an interesting question to the Rules. What about the rest of the cars that did complete the distance on the tarmac. Should Vettel have been disqualified?
It's not the end of the world or F1 as the crybabies would have us believe. Drivers know the rules and often push the envelope, now everyone can see the stewards interpretation of that particular rule with some clarity, and by the way not the first time it's been deployed..so BE WARNED all ye whom dost trespass in myne house..shizen.
"....shizen..."?
Is that a phonetic variant of German "Scheissen" or "schiessen"?
Which is preferable to be shot at or to be shat all over?
It's a bit like Brexit..You either come down on one side or the other..and both are stifled by rules and regulations ...and in conclusion as with Brexit ..this could go on for months ..the outcome will still be the same ..we onlookers do what we always do enjoy the race ...stand back and choose our side.
Brexit? What's that, a cookie?
I am personally getting very dismayed at the so-called regulations. What has happened to F1?
the cars are so uncompetitive, it seems that the biggest chequebook wins every time. I have been watching F.1 for 40 years and in the last 5 it has been getting so boring that it takes me all my time to stay awake!
BTCC is so much better nowadays, proper racing with no quarter given. Please get back to the F.1 it used to be with none of the hybrid engines that cost millions to produce.
This is not in relation to the Vettel / Hamilton incident. I am just curious about a few things as my memory is not as good as it used to be.
1) Was it F1 where drivers used to have a spare car? I recall seeing races where a driver may have damaged his car and he could run back to his garage and get the spare car?
2) I recall seeing an 'open wheeler' race on television, where an incident occurred and a boy (I don't think it was a field marshall) ran across the racetrack carrying a fire extinguisher. The boy was hit by a car, and the fire extinguisher struck the race car driver in the head. From memory I think one (or possibly both) was killed. This occurred approximately 30 to 50 years ago. I thought it happened in an F1 race, but maybe it was an Indy race. Can anyone shed any light on this please?
3) Why is F1 limited to around 20 to 24 cars in a race? Indy has around 33 and Nascar has around 40?
4) Could most F1 teams afford to race three cars, if it was allowed
Thank you
Expect an answer from BlackDog shortly. He knows it all.
Can’t stay away Mr. Merrington! Well I know enough to know you are the racist that was expelled from this forum DAVID but I’m sure that it won’t take long for you to return to your foul mouth racist rants. Let’s hope Leopold bans you properly now and whatever other alias you use.
Who the hell is Mr. Merrington? Or is your name in real life BlackDog, too? What racist rants are you talking about?
Yes F1 used to have a spare car which was set up for the number one driver it was used at the start of a race after an accident.
The race I think you are talking about was when a accident happened and the car was on fire another driver stopped ran across the race track grabbed a fire extinguisher and tried to put the fire out he also tried to stop the other drivers, the driver in the car which was on fire died.
I expect cost has to do with the lack of more cars and the same would apply to running three cars.
I hope this helps you.