Official 2024 Canadian Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***

[Byker28i]

TheDeuce said:

Byker28i said:

Will Buxton claiming RB telling Perez to limp the damaged car back to the pits to help Max win was similar to Crashgate, that the punishment was light
https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bull-canada-gp-p...

He referenced crashgate, he can't believe it's 'similar' though.

There's a big difference between deliberately causing a crash vs not responding to one in the safest way possible, for the sake of competitive advantage.

I suppose the biggest difference is the former is premeditated, whereas the latter was just a selfish and inappropriate response to something that came out of the blue.

I think he was trying ot make the point it was to help Max get the win by not getting the safety car out and bunching up the field, but it's a bit of a stretch

[Byker28i]

PhilAsia said:

Yep, protecting a lead is normal. I would think all teams would do it, except for Ferrari who would retire the lead car "just in case". Perez would not know the extent of the damage and just followed directives from those that could see.

Did he break his mirrors off?

To be fair It did look quite a soft 'bump' from onboard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWyyWsFNLYY

[PlywoodPascal]

TheDeuce said:

Byker28i said:

Will Buxton claiming RB telling Perez to limp the damaged car back to the pits to help Max win was similar to Crashgate, that the punishment was light
https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bull-canada-gp-p...

He referenced crashgate, he can't believe it's 'similar' though.

There's a big difference between deliberately causing a crash vs not responding to one in the safest way possible, for the sake of competitive advantage.

I suppose the biggest difference is the former is premeditated, whereas the latter was just a selfish and inappropriate response to something that came out of the blue.

the difference in terms of intent is clear
the effect of both is similar though - endangering other competitors (or even your own driver) for your own competitive advantage, .

[phil1979]

PlywoodPascal said:

the difference in terms of intent is clear
the effect of both is similar though - endangering other competitors (or even your own driver) for your own competitive advantage, .

Would that include driving around a large section of a lap on a disintegrating tyre, on the final lap?

[TheDeuce]

phil1979 said:

PlywoodPascal said:

the difference in terms of intent is clear
the effect of both is similar though - endangering other competitors (or even your own driver) for your own competitive advantage, .

Would that include driving around a large section of a lap on a disintegrating tyre, on the final lap?

For tyres it's normally OK to drive back to the pits for a replacement (or the finish line if final lap..) provided the tyre isn't eating the floor and spraying carbon fibre everywhere. The tyre itself, whatever state it's in, normally stays attached and whatever breaks free isn't dangerous as such.

It's loose bits of carbon fibre being left in a cars wake or sections of loose bodywork or wings that they really don't like detaching.

We see cars with ravaged tyres make it back to the pits uncriticised several times a season sometimes. The biggest criticism tends to be on the driver for going too fast and damaging their own floor in the process.

[anonymous_user]

phil1979 said:

PlywoodPascal said:

the difference in terms of intent is clear
the effect of both is similar though - endangering other competitors (or even your own driver) for your own competitive advantage, .

Would that include driving around a large section of a lap on a disintegrating tyre, on the final lap?

or Rosberg in 2016 at Austria, when his front wing was spraying carbon fibre everywhere on the last lap ...he'd have lost the WDC to Hamilton that year if he'd just parked it

[TheDeuce]

That pleasant moment in a thread full of bickering when some light entertainment turns up

[Sandpit Steve]

How the Hell is this supposed to work next year?

[cuprabob]

Brilliant as usual but the bit with Lando leaving the pits had me in stitches

[TheDeuce]

cuprabob said:

Brilliant as usual but the bit with Lando leaving the pits had me in stitches

Me too, I knew it was coming but the way it was done with him mincing around was hilarious

[moorx]

TheDeuce said:

cuprabob said:

Brilliant as usual but the bit with Lando leaving the pits had me in stitches

Me too, I knew it was coming but the way it was done with him mincing around was hilarious

And the bit with Albon.

[Sandpit Steve]

cuprabob said:

Brilliant as usual but the bit with Lando leaving the pits had me in stitches

Yes, but they had it on the wrong side. The pit exit here is very specific to the circuit, and is to the left of the track.

A good bit ruined, in my little mind.

[TheDeuce]

Sandpit Steve said:

cuprabob said:

Brilliant as usual but the bit with Lando leaving the pits had me in stitches

Yes, but they had it on the wrong side. The pit exit here is very specific to the circuit, and is to the left of the track.

A good bit ruined, in my little mind.

Bet you're fun at a dinner party

[TheDeuce]

They just released a short of the Lando bit here for anyone that's in a rush: https://youtube.com/shorts/_o58aC3fFeI?si=uSImbN3-...

[PhilAsia]

Albon bit tickled me...

[PlywoodPascal]

phil1979 said:

PlywoodPascal said:

the difference in terms of intent is clear
the effect of both is similar though - endangering other competitors (or even your own driver) for your own competitive advantage, .

Would that include driving around a large section of a lap on a disintegrating tyre, on the final lap?

it's a good point.
I suppose there are two thoughts that occured in response to it.

1. The purpose of doing that is to get to the end of the race and win it, not to retire the car (which you can do from anywhere around the track by just stopping, for instance stopping where you crashed and smashed your car up).

2. Where damage can be repaired within the course of an event there is a long standing tradition in motorsport of continuing with it - think front wing, or brake issues at Le Mans, or the example you give, punctures. you get the car back to the pits, or home, or to the end of the stage, then you fix it and carry on... so that's accepted and acceptable behaviour BECAUSE there is a competitive motivation/need/benefit to do it, for the driver concerned.

The difference is that Perez was instructed to drive the damaged car back to the pits not to remain in the race, but to retire from it in a different way - the outcome for him was no different, but the potential risk to other drivers was higher.

so no, on reflection I don't think it includes limping a car _that's still in the race_ around, no.

[phil1979]

Limping

Fastest I've ever seen a driver limp around a track.

Oh well...

https://youtu.be/g1JwduUGHGQ?si=OKlyL5Ty4Z8YyGDj

[phil1979]

Team call, first corner after the chequered flag:

[PlywoodPascal]

phil1979 said:

Team call, first corner after the chequered flag:

Yes, slow down laps are slower because when not in a race there no need to take risks.
When you are racing the risk is justified by the benefit of going faster.
When you’ve a puncture on the last lap it’s ok justified to continue despite the damage because you’re still in a race.
When you’ve smashed your car up irreparably it’s not justified to derive back to the pits because you gain nothing.

What you’re arguing is that a simple puncture should be a retirement, which has been the case in the history motorsport never, quite frankly.

[anonymous_user]

PlywoodPascal said:

phil1979 said:

Team call, first corner after the chequered flag:

Yes, slow down laps are slower because when not in a race there no need to take risks.
When you are racing the risk is justified by the benefit of going faster.
When you’ve a puncture on the last lap it’s ok justified to continue despite the damage because you’re still in a race.
When you’ve smashed your car up irreparably it’s not justified to derive back to the pits because you gain nothing.

What you’re arguing is that a simple puncture should be a retirement, which has been the case in the history motorsport never, quite frankly.

he'd have a better point if a disintegrating tyre was causing shards of carbon flying everywhere, but Hamiltons tyre didn't even delaminate & afaiaa no one has ever got a puncture from another cars piece of rubber sidewall & clearly Bono's comment isn't related to danger to other competitors

plenty of examples of rear punctures causing floor damage though, along with front wings stuck under the car ...but no mention of those & you know, it's Hamilton