Join Paul and me as we review the Formula 1 Austrian Grand Prix. We cover each team and driver as they finished and even discuss the FIA decision regarding Max Verstappen’s pass on Charles Leclerc. We share our race awards and read your mail.
"You can't take F1 to America, you have to take America to F1."
Negative Camber
Chief Opinion Officer, TPF
Contact Us:
tpf@theparcferme.com
Follow on:
This website is unofficial and is not associated in any way with the Formula 1 companies. F1, FORMULA ONE, FORMULA 1, FIA FORMULA ONE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, GRAND PRIX and related marks are trade marks of Formula One Licensing B.V. Additional information can be found at F1's website at www.formula1.com. We collect information about visitors who comment on Sites that use our Akismet anti-spam service. The information we collect depends on how the User sets up Akismet for the Site, but typically includes the commenter's IP address, user agent, referrer, and Site URL (along with other information directly provided by the commenter such as their name, username, email address, and the comment itself).
Hello Paul, i get what you’re saying about needing consistent rules. But should we really want consistency just for the sake of consistency if that means more and more non-incidents will be penalized? This was always (and may still) gonna get worse and worse, to the point where racing becomes virtually impossible. I’m glad they broke the downward spiral and set a precedent to have a more lenient interpretation of the rules. But even if they would have penalized Verstappen there wouldn’t be consistency. Why did Ricciardo get a penaltie for the non-incident with Norris, but not for the Grosjean… Read more »
Hi PMR, we should always want consistency but I agree the level of interference should be reduced by a long way. If this set a new precedent for how they judge then thats great. But I fear if they don’t re-write the rulebook the next group of stewards may see it differently again so lets take that choice out of their hands
I’m so conflicted, because to me this was more a penalty than Vettel in Canada. He made contact and had control of the car and literally bumped Charlie off the road. However, I didn’t think it was a penalty in Canada and only my sense of injustice is acting up because I want to see aggressive racing and no input from the stewards. But it definitely lends credence to an anti Ferrari slant, and also terror about taking away a win from the Austrian Red Bull team in the Austrian Red Bull ring. Conspiracy theory, yes, but I bet some… Read more »
A season to watch: 1994. Sure Michael Schumacher dominated the season but that wasn’t the plan with Senna driving at Williams. And then there’s the British GP that year, Benetton cheating and final race drama at Adelaide, Australia.
That’s a good recommendation too. That was a good season. I tend to like the battles at Benetton as well as the McLaren/Ferrari battles in late 90’s too.
May I ask for opinion on Ferrari? Leclerc asked to race, he asked to be allowed to build the gap to the cars behind. Ferrari told him to cool his jets. Result? Verstappen closed and won (rules or otherwise argument notwithstanding). Now, either Ferrari had to employ strategy because of tires/fuel/battery/brakes or other over-regulated non-F1-pure racing BS, or what? Why the hell can’t a driver DRIVE? Everyone loved the race but we’ve all lost track of the fact that the lead man was told to slow down, coast, not drive to a commanding victory.
I agree that there is a lack of consistency with the application of penalties, and that many have called for the same stewards to attend each stop. However, I have to agree with Max Verstappen on the matter, in that there could be a natural subjectivity that becomes the norm if that were the case, ie. One guy always gets the penalty because they aren’t liked. I think varying the stewards keeps objectivity in the forefront, and the rules should be written more clearly to avoid the variance in penalties. On a lighter note, how come the Fantasy GP is… Read more »