[HD] Vettel thoughts on Penalty about a similar crash (Suzuka 2018)

[@fxxk2866]

Hamilton didn't go off the track but braked.... End of debates

[@mutsad]

Please explain what you mean.

[@vizuk]

The track is defined by white lines, Vettel left no room and forced Hamilton off.

[@vresi]

@Fxx K - Don't be silly now, of course he did. i.imgur.com/NYXQkj8.jpg See that white line, yeah? That's the track limit and when you're over it, you're considered to be "off the track" and the reason Lewis is off the track is because Vettel put him there.

[@Bahamuttiamat]

1:38 the white line demarcates track limits. You'll notice lewis was completely off the track in avoidance.

[@guitarvs.physics5473]

You can clearly see Max steering right on the grass, the car was going slower and he had better control. In Vettel’s incident, the car was way faster, no steering to the right except for slide correction any steering to the left would have sent him to the wall ahead. The two incidents are not the same. And this is the opinion of 80% of current and retired drivers. If you know better please correct them.

[@idklike3210]

Agent of Chaos that doesn’t make sense he was turning right to not cut the whole track. But had to turn when he comes to the end of it and has a hard angle on

[@pfx2259]

Why do people think Vettel’s & Max’s entry the same incident? Look at the space and Vettel’s trajectory options. Forget unsafe entry, there is no safe escape.

[@Marcel_be]

they are actually very similar. Verstappen forced Kimi on the outside of the curb, which is where Lewis was forced to go. 2 major differences: no grass on the inside of the chicane at Suzuka, no wall on the outside.

[@flammenjc]

The only difference is that Lewis lifted and Kimi didn't, but to Kimi's defense Max was basically parallel to him when it became a problem for him, so unless he was looking 90degrees to his left [which isn't possible in an f1 car anyway] he wouldn't be able to avoid.

[@pr-tj5by]

PFx, It certainly means he should have yielded his position to Lewis!

[@swapnilnayak2449]

@Mike Gilardino how, he just said that he is not a fan of those penalties and never said that it was correct for Mac to have been penalized! He just said that it was not a gentleman manner of rejoining the track you goof! Plus the 2 incidents are very different!

[@BHRxRACER]

Vettel said there shouldn't be a penalty given despite that. What's your point?

[@bazil83]

What he said is that he's not a fan of penalties, but racing in that way - he's [Verstappen] not helping himself if he races that way. So he didn't actually say he shouldn't be given a penalty.

[@tribalmonkey23]

He did say he's not a fan of penalties...

[@henrigauthier]

Mack and adds “but” 😂

[@rabona52]

Ciao, complimenti per l'archivio. hai la gara delle schiacciate del 2000 ? Commento Tranquillo-Buffa.. Grazie

[@torrentplayer]

So, here's the differences: - wider track and "safe" zones in Japan - Max caused collision even if he DIDN'T want to - Max was in more control than Vet(not full, MORE) of his car because of less speed, no slope and no oversteer And Seb says himself here that he understand that it was bad move from Verstappen, but personally don't like how penalties work. I can't see your point here.

[@rensvanampting234]

No this is bullshit

[@PratikShukla82]

Vettel is more consistent than FIA.

[@GG_Gir8]

Similar but not same incident... max had more space, a lot of space, to do a more secure re entry... he wait raikkonen only for slow down him, vettel had not enough space instead

[@lewis8552]

These are pretty different, max had more control on how he could come back on the track and more margin to straight line the chicane. Sebs was across grass with less grip and control, he also stated in this interview that he wasn't a fan of the penalty and just said max could have rejoined a wee bit better which is not wrong.

[@vresi]

The rule doesn't take "being in control" into matter and for the reason of the explicit wording and now also execution of the rule, these incidents are identical.

[@lewis8552]

@@vresi these incidents aren't identical, no incident is the same, however I can't dispute the fact that vettels penalty wasn't warranted, he broke a rule that exists. However, this incident could easily have been interpreted as a racing incident in this case and the fact vettel lacked control would favour it more to being a racing incident( that's why race starts and wet races have more racing incidents than penalties). Obviously it wasn't ruled that way because vettel barley broke a rule that was triggered because Hamilton got his nose into a gap that didn't exist and in turn we got an underwhelming end to a great race. Also iam not a fan of bringing up past events and comparing them equally because every incident is different and can be judged differently. Any driver can have a past event brought up to make them look hypocritical and it often just leaves everyone going round in a circle bringing up past events.

[@MuhammadIbrahim-vt8is]

@@vresiVresiberba the rules given by the FIA do mention about the car being under control and not being under control. Pointless to penalise the driver if the car wasn't under control.

[@bazil83]

If you listen to Verstappen's team radio on his incident, he said "I tried to do the best I could", which is basically saying he too was on the limit, he wasn't sliding as Seb did, but his defence suggests he was on the limit, and couldn't go any more left than he did... His steering angle would suggest he's more or less telling the truth.

[@eggy6857]

@@bazil83 you can clearly see that from Max's steering wheel. It's a full opposite lock. The only thing Max could have done was skip the entire corner instead of trying to still take it. Kimi would not have even gotten close to Verstappen in that case but the FIA would probably still have punished him for gaining an advantage.

[@sterling6439]

Verstappen had the control of his car. This is an important different.

[@brodcaster14]

Why should Vettel be exempt from the consequences of his mistake that resulted in him being out of control? Hamilton didn't force him to lose control, the FIA didn't force him to lose control. Vettel lost control and he unsafely rejoined the track because of it.

[@sterling6439]

@@brodcaster14 Accidents and driving errors are not punishable. Only if Vettel had the control of his car at the moment of rejoin, this would be a correct penalty. I dont think he had the control at this moment.

[@brodcaster14]

​@@sterling6439​Doesn't matter if he has control or not. He rejoined the track dangerously because of his own mistake. Lewis had to take evasive action to avoid an accident. This is a straightforward penalty. The only reason he doesn't have control is because of his own mistake.

[@vresi]

The rule in question doesn't rely on whether you're in control or not, it simply says you have to rejoin in a safe manner, which Vettel didn't do since Lewis had to take action to avoid a collision. Both cases are clear cut and nearly identical as far as the wording of the rule itself is concerned.

[@Alumnikiid]

How can vettel not be in control when the car returned to the racing line perfectly. Leaving just enough space to block ham but not crash into him.

[@alessiodalerci568]

Dove posso scriverti in privato?

[@hdvsmith]

Thank you for posting this! I hope it get thousands of views...

[@41BOT]

Yes looks like he could have definitely left 0.5m-1m more for Hamilton to overtake. But I'd still question what does rejoining even mean. I think Vettel has already rejoined and was at rather simmilar speed to Hamilton. It was definitely rude to keep closing towards the wall, but it was already after rejoining IMO. This was a bit extreme especially as Hamilton was already in his outside side. But the speeds difference and how gradually and slowly Vettel closed the gap was not too rude to be worth taken the victory away IMO

[@aleynsfran]

I totally agree with you bro, unfortunately i think they consider rejoining when you get back at the racing line. So maybe thats why he rejoined unsafely

[@alexnewton2579]

Ritorna sul forum di world of wrestling. Colosso ti ha sbannato.

[@marcomolinari94]

Manda link ahah

[@Neo.555]

Kimi and Verstappen were side by side and they made contact, which wasn't the case in 2019 Canada. If you are to compare, use the 2016 Monaco btw Riccardo and Hamilton. Riccardo was forced to break as Hamilton didn't leave any space but no penalty was awarded!

[@vresi]

The rule in question doesn't take contact into consideration. Something can still be dangerous even if contact with another car did or did not happen. In terms of the offense and how the rule is written, Suzuka 2018 is identical. Regarding Monaco 2016, Lewis had already rejoined the track before Ricciardo had to do any avoiding actions, in fact, it was a turn later and the key thing here is that Lewis left PLENTY of space for Ricciardo to exist on i.imgur.com/NYXQkj8.jpg and compare that to i.imgur.com/kDJoq3G.png

[@michamarczuk1420]

Hamilton and Vettel didn't end up side by side, because Lewis has to break, otherwise he would have been put in the wall by Vettel

[@majjitu]

Hahahhaha the same Vettel who now thinks Unsafe entry is acceptable now that the tables have turned on him.

[@KosmicHRTRacingTeam]

Just because he says it’s not a gentleman thing to do in a similar but also different situation, doesn’t mean he is saying 5 seconds is fair. But, since you want to go there. So now the list of guys to publicly come out AGAINST the RULING are: Mario Andretti, Damon Hill, Nigel Mansell, Jenson Button (that’s 4 former F1 world champions), Paul DeResta, Martin Brundle, Alex Werz (GPDA Chairman), Alan McNish, mark Webber, and several other WEC and Indycar drivers, and all of the announcers in the booth. So you think those guys are all wrong? So step back from your AMG or Hamilton bias and think of that for a moment. Now as time has gone on. More people have had a chance to observe what happened and now added to the list of NO PENALTY: Jacque Villeneuve, Daniel Ricciardo, Dani Kyvat, David Coulthard, Alain Prost

[@philipblake3381]

Nobody say to Vettel to make errors over and over again...why he went off the track?

[@brodcaster14]

Hitler was democratically elected no? Just listening to the masses and using an appeal to authority is a lazy excuse. Every one of those people you just named is sick of watching Hamilton/Mercedes win, if you can think logically you know the penalty was straightforward. Hamilton had to evasive action by braking hard and downshifting two gears to avoid an accident because of Vettel re joining unsafely because of a mistake he made. Vettel went off on his own, Lewis didn't force him to do it, FIA didn't force him, only Vettel. There are consequences to mistakes and creating dangerous situations and Vettel shouldn't act like a child because of his own mistake.

[@KosmicHRTRacingTeam]

OppositeLock oh geez, bring hitler into it, brilliant. Yep, I’m sure all of those guys are against Hamilton, sure sounds like it when I listen to the broadcasts. I’ve seen a ton of Hamilton fans come out and admit that the penalty is a joke as well, but keep living under a rack and Whatever helps make you sleep at night.

[@gabborpo2]

@@brodcaster14 that’s a bullshit penalty if you look at the fact that was given to Vettel for intentional reasons, basically the biggest bullshit they could have ever done. And Vettel had no fucking control, but maybe you’re too ignorant to understand that.

[@maggie7843]

It’s not the same penalty. Read both decisions (Canada 2019 and Suzuka 2018).

[@Lastname6955]

Ironic

[@hugoabrahamse4724]

Unsafe re-entry by both Max and Vettel, deserves a penalty. Vettel is just moaning (all the time).

[@gabborpo2]

Only Max, Vettel couldn’t do anything.

[@fatcontrole1]

Vettel either: *Came on and deliberately blocked Hamilton. = penalty *Came back on the track in an unsafe manner and blocked Hamilton unintentionally. = Penalty

[@thejack01]

uhm... is that you opinion? Well if you were right they would have penalized all the other drivers that made the same move. But they didn't. So I say Vettel wasn't to penalize as if he rejoined the track without any bad purpose. Lewis would have better try the opposite line to overtake, instead of seeking for a collision. But you know, money rules and mercedes got years of gift from Fia since the very beginning of Hybrid Power Units. That's history and whoever deny that is a liar!

[@fatcontrole1]

@@thejack01 I'm not sure Hamilton tried to cause a collision. It's not 1994 fella

[@thejack01]

@@fatcontrole1 Don't know. Lewis is very smart because he knows that everithing dirty he do never ends in a penalty. Mercedes is absolute favourite by Fia. Did you remember all the story? Well, it began with the HPU, passing from the black box, the secret mid season practice with Pirelli when they solved tyres blistering and finished (for now) with the holed rims. I think there's enough material for being bored by those fake sport.

[@fatcontrole1]

@@thejack01 that and the aliens mate

[@thejack01]

@@fatcontrole1 I guess you approve all of this shit. Happy you pal...

[@swedgendesu9960]

Verstappen caused a collision. Vettel did not.

[@brodcaster14]

Only because Hamilton took evasive action and backed off. Even Lewis said if there wasn't a wall there he would have kept fighting but he had to back out or there would be big accident.

[@vresi]

Irrelevant. Neither Vettel nor Verstappen was penalised for causing a collision, but for re-joining the track in an unsafe manner.

[@Bahamuttiamat]

Because lewis braked in avoidance.

[@craigsips8677]

Pontius Pilate The only reason there wasn't a catastrophic 100mph crash between two walls was because Lewis pulled an emergency breaking manoeuvre. There is no way you can penalise max and not Vettel for the same thing.... by the by, isn't it interesting that everyone was happy about Max's penalty but are moaning about Vettel's? Never has there been such hypocritical behaviour.

[@D888J]

Vettel 2!!!

[@pablofermandois8031]

Completely different situation