IPSA

Do you have any formal connection to or involvement with the FIA ?

Nizer

Final verdict may yet change....

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/a...anada/4476550/

Glyndellis

According to the UK Daily Mail, Ferrari will not appeal the penalty, despite having previously said that they've already appealed the penalty......

LuigiVampa

Ferrari's position in this article does appear to make sense. Appeals of rulings have played a part in the outcome of the WDC most notably Hunt and Lauda in 1976.

From what I see it is full steam ahead by Ferrari.

Glyndellis

This is the article in the Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...nadian-GP.html

"Ferrari will not appeal Sebastian Vettel’s penalty that cost him victory at the Canadian Grand Prix.

In an embarrassing climbdown, team principal Mattia Binotto has written to the FIA to inform them that Ferrari will not be lodging a challenge ahead of the deadline on Thursday evening.
This is despite Ferrari having previously said the appeal had gone in. Vettel crossed the line first but was handed a five-second penalty after running off track at Montreal on Sunday and coming back on in what the stewards deemed to be an unsafe manner.

Lewis Hamilton, who was pressing him for the lead, had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

Hamilton went on to win once the forfeit had been added to Vettel’s time. It gave Hamilton a 62-point lead over the German in the championship.

Vettel was furious, calling the stewards ‘blind’ and missing the initial post-race interview with Martin Brundle.

He also moved the position boards, indicating that he thought he was the moral winner.

Former world champion Nigel Mansell echoed the outrage of several ex-drivers by saying the stewards’ decision was ‘embarrassing’.

On Sunday evening in Canada and in subsequent communiques, Ferrari insisted they had appealed.

New video evidence later emerged seemingly showing that Vettel had made a second steering input to block Hamilton once he had gathered control of his Ferrari after coming off the grass back on to the track.

It appeared to contradict the German’s contention that he could go nowhere but into Hamilton’s path.

Other drivers supported the stewards, with Nico Rosberg, the 2016 world champion, saying: ‘It’s very clear that it was an unsafe return to the track.

'You have to return safely, so a penalty is deserved. The rule is there and that is it. Pretty simple.’

Ferrari will retain their ‘right of review’ under article 14 of the FIA’s sporting code. This enables them to question the verdict if significant new evidence is discovered.


I think the only steaming at Ferrari is Vettel. Perhaps he won't make a mistake this weekend

multi21

^^ agree but I find the FIA woeful inadequate to properly police themselves and reverse a decision that has taken on worldwide attention and concern.

At stake is not only the race win, but Vettel was also assessed 2 points on his super license... something that could come into affect in terms of suspension should he get any further derogatory points to his license.

Paul Solk

Apparently part of their big new evidence was Karun's analysis from SkyF1... At least we wrapped it up before FP3 in France
They also used...

• Analysis of the telemetry data of VET's car, including car attitude channels
• A video analysis of the camera views (front view, top view, onboard cameras of VET and HAM) prepared after the race
• A video of VET's face camera, which was released by F1 Limited after the race
• Post-race and video images
• Analysis of the GPS racing line data of both HAM and VET in the Situation lap and in the previous race laps
• Witness statement of VET (the "VET WS").

But the FIA retorted that five of the seven elements were available at the time of their original decision, Karun's piece was a 'personal opinion by a third party' while Vettel's face camera was not 'significant and relevant' as it could also be seen in another video.

DTMiller

But now people can argue about HAM in FP2!

Paul Solk

LOL...
I love when they actually went back and looked at the video...

"Oh wait, he was actually off throttle, off line, let Max had the apex and stayed out of his way" Go ahead, add 5 seconds on to his FP2 finish LOL

seanseidman

Coochas

What is left out of this thread is the fact that the stewards are humans that are reviewing data. There are professional referees in the NFL and more and more other sports now that also review 'data' to assess 'play.' They make mistakes sometimes, plain and simple. I am not hardening that the FIA stewards are wrong BUT let's be serious, they can make errors just like any other sporting judge.

LuigiVampa

I say we keep debating this until the lights go out on the French GP at which point this threads explodes in a Mission Impossible fashion!

multi21

True, but the level of inconsistencies is ridiculous. A multi-billion dollar "sport" doesn't have a full time race steward and instead rotates this very important position. Second, they gave Vettel the lowest possible penalty of 5 seconds as argued by most here who agree with the statement, but conveniently left out that he got 2 points on his super license - pretty harsh given the least amount of penalty assessed.

Then there is the sublime mind reading the race stewards are capable of doing... so if I look in my mirror then I must be blocking?? BTW, the current crop of drivers were interviewed yesterday in the press conferences and although diplomatic about it because they still race in the series, they all stated that it was harsh penalty.

Luigi, it's the only topic that is actually being contested this year in F1 - it certainly isn't anything on track. The only thing to look forward to in F1 is the Netflix Season 2 series. Can't wait to hear what was said about this issue. Check back in March! LOL

Manifold

... but there isn't an objective standard for what the 'correct' call is in these gray-zone situations, so it's only an 'error' to someone who strongly disagrees with the call. Rather than trying to decide whether a call is in 'error', it may be better to judge whether it seems 'reasonable', and if so, accept the call and move on.

In this particular case, no one can say that Seb did absolutely nothing wrong to warrant the penalty, nor that Lewis did anything wrong which would exonerate Seb to any extent. So the situation was at least in the gray zone.

Coochas

I just don't like the way the rules and regulations have evolved in F1. It's just not hard racing any more.